Fr. Bernas calls Cybercrime Law “frightening”

Share:

Newsbytes

By Raïssa Robles

The Cybercrime Law is “partly good and partly chilling,” wrote Jesuit priest-lawyer Joaquin Bernas in his latest blog entry posted yesterday.

Bernas explained why:

As can easily be seen, the law deals not only with the most delicate rights of freedom of expression, freedom of communication, and the privacy of communication but also with the equally sacred right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” against government intrusion.  These rights suffered during the period of martial rule. Their suppression or impairment are usually  the targets of governments who have dark intentions.  When criticized, the facile answer to critics given by those with dark intentions is that these rights are not absolute.  That defense is already being repeated by Palace mouthpieces.  It is therefore a good time to look into the disturbing aspects of the law.  We might begin by taking at least a preliminary look at some of the provisions which are now under attack.

To read the rest of his explanation on the cybercrime law, please click on this link.

For the young Netizens who are now running scared because of this law, this gives you a chance and a lesson to experience even just a little bit the chilling effect of dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ Martial Law.   The latter was much, much worse.  And yet you fear this online libel.

By the way, I’m glad Senator Vicente Sotto has finally admitted it was he who had inserted the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Act.

Wonder why he said this to a foreign news network but denied the same to local journalists.

Prominent digital rights champion takes up our fight against online libel

Since I wrote about Senator Vicente Sotto’s midnight insertion of the online libel section in the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the outrage  has gone viral on the Net.

My husband Alan called my attention to the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation which wrote a piece supporting Filipino netizens. I am humbled by the fact that EFF linked the piece to my website. It is a demonstration of the power of the World Wide Web to connect people globally together.

Please click on this link to read the piece.

Boingboing also picks up cybercrime law

My piece was also picked up by the much-read culture and technology site Boingboing. And I’m not even a geek :)

Please click on this link to read.

Philippine Daily Inquirer mentions me in their editorial

I would also like to thank the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the biggest-selling Philippine newspaper, for mentioning me and what I wrote in their editorial.

Please click on this link to read.

Again, all these underscore that one person cannot do this alone.

But altogether, we can.

I’m not against a libel law covering netizens

Let me explain my personal stand on online libel. I am not against punishing people who make libelous statements online. But the law has to be well-defined on what are considered libelous statements; who gets punished for them; and what the punishment is. I also don’t believe in a jail term.

And I believe a public hearing should be called on the matter and a separate law crafted just on this.

I have been a victim of libelous statements myself – frequently repeated lies that accuse me up to now of being “the small lady who gave bank documents to the prosecution” during the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona; of being a kleptomaniac who filched from a high-end furniture store; and of being a paid hack. I am aghast at how some people can make up lies and post these online. I will fight such lies no end and will expose those behind it.

But I believe that the Internet can and is being used more for the greater good of the country. The Cybercrime Law – the way it is so sloppily worded now – will make this blooming of democracy shrivel on the vine.

As my hubby Alan told me during one of our discussions at the breakfast table, democracy is defending another person’s right to say what I vehemently disagree with; not what I agree with. Sometimes, discussions do get so heated up that these degenerate into name-calling and opinions that defy logic. But this is all part and parcel of our maturation as a democracy.

Which is why, Alan said we have to rid our law books of what he calls “this Sottobomination”.

Alan also also coined another word –” Sottomy: the act of poisoning a well-intentioned bill with a vested interest stealth amendment not subject to public hearing.”

I have always believed in the expression of contrary views, and this shows in this blog. Because only when we are exposed to a multiplicity of opinions and ideas do we see many sides of an issue. In the same way that in order to appreciate the beauty of a polished diamond, you have to turn it around and around to see all its facets.

Oh, by the way – NO, this is not the interesting topic  I promised to write about Sotto. That’s coming next. You’d be surprised. I guess he will, too.

137 Responses to “Fr. Bernas calls Cybercrime Law “frightening””

Read below or add a comment...

  1. 38

    Omg, it’s 4:57am and I chuckled a slug of coffee up my nose at “sottomy.” So Biblical, heeheehee!

  2. 37
    tordj says:

    anti cybercrime law is also the top article in reddit.

  3. 36
    baycas says:

    Stop cyber martial law…

    http://pifa.ph/

  4. 35
    andrew lim says:

    THEY HAVE STARTED BLOCKING COMMENTS ONLINE

    I just want to report that they have started to block out comments deemed libelous in the Inquirer news online forums.

    It uses a horizontal black stripe on the banned comment, with the words “comment blocked” RA No. 10175.

    Can someone post a screen shot of it? I do not know how.

    Reminds you with what they do with books written by ex-CIA operatives.

    Is this Inquirer’s move or the Cybercrime authorities?

    • 35.1
      Vibora says:

      it goes like this: (shades of black) followed by
      “ᴄᴏᴍᴍᴇɴᴛ ʙʟᴏᴄᴋᴇᴅ.] (ʀᴀ ɴᴏ. 10175)”
      i saw this in one comment on Facebook.

      • 35.1.1
        Cha says:

        It’s a form of protest going around in facebook. People are deliberately blacking out their own comments to dramatise cybercrime law enactment scenario. Profile photos are also being blackened.

    • 35.2
      raissa says:

      Give me a link. I’ll do it.

  5. 34
    Charlie Root says:

    If you have < 20mins, you should see this, quite relevant at these times ;-)

    http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government.html

    • 34.1
      springwoodman says:

      Thank you. Much food for thought there. Empowers CPMer’s and all bloggers.

    • 34.2
      pelang says:

      maiba ako. Please read the PDI articles: Enrile Jr. Chance to Clear up bad image by Gil Cabacungan and read comments by Juan, and Rock 7222. Also Alfie Anido Mystery death according to Enrile by Cathy Yamsuam and comments by Rock 7222, Manong Osang, Wishful thinking, and R. also published by PDI.
      intersting to read.

  6. 33
    Clementine says:

    Napansin ko lang, wala ng narco-comment sa mga news item like in Phil inquirer, abs-cbn news, etc…. Hindi lang nag copy paste si plagiarist,; pinatay pa ang acting freedom of speech/ expression. Hanep talaga.

  7. 32
    Ancient Mariner says:

    SOTTOBOTOMY : The removal, by surgery, of all the healthy and sound parts of the brain.

  8. 31
    Rene-Ipil says:

    Fellow CPMers, please forgive me for digressing from the day’s favorite topic.  But I am really disappointed on what is happening with the Supreme Court (SC) on, according to the most senior justice (Carpio), an insignificant event.  This is about the continued inability of senior justices to attend the flag raising ceremony in the SC without any valid explanation.  Justice Carpio merely explained that the attendance thereof depends on the predisposition of individual justice.  Shall we accept that explanation? I think we all know the real reason for such actuation of the senior justices.

    To me, the failure of the justices to attend the flag raising rites constitutes a bad example to all Filipinos, especially the youth. Not to mention that such failure is a gross violation of an SC circular of 2001 and the 1998 Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines.  In regard to this, the Inquirer cited Atty. Romulo Makalintal.

    “Lawyer Romulo Macalintal earlier called on the justices to attend the flag ceremony, whether they liked Sereno or not, to show respect for the law, the flag and the country.

    “He reminded the justices about a circular issued by the Court in 2001, which required executive judges to supervise the holding of the flag rites in their courthouses and “shall ensure the attendance of all judges and court personnel in the rites.”

    “Macalintal also pointed out that Section 18 of the Republic Act No. 8491 or the 1998 Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines provides that “all government offices and educational institutions shall observe the flag-raising ceremony every Monday morning.”

    I believe that such gross and unabashed “thrashing” of our flag constitutes at least a betrayal of public trust and a ground for impeachment.  May be we can start soonest with the Arroyo 8 whom we have lost our trust since the time they engineered the aborted escape of GMA through a TRO last year.  Of course we are facing an election year in 2013 but the impeachment proceedings should be started ASAP.   The Arroyo 8 justices are now  forewarned.

    • 31.1
      joseph says:

      Not only a bad example (!) but a blatant display of disrespect to the nation they sworn to protect.

      Who are they to violate the simple law of the land and expect to escape accountability by merely citing their personal preferences over their duty to uphold the constitutionality of our laws?

      Their egos do not matter in our right to become a respectable nation.

      Let’s challenge them!

      • 31.1.1
        joseph says:

        err _ Their egos do not matter . . . to HAVE a respectable nation

      • 31.1.2
        jorge bernas says:

        @ joseph,

        Tama ka pare, Hindi dapat baliwalain ang kabobohang pinaggagawa nang mga TUTANG justices na ito. Kong hindi nila nagustuhan si chief justice sereno eh dapat magresign nalang sila diyan. Sila na dapat magpakita nang magandang halimbawa pero ano itong ginagawa nila. if l were Pnoy patatalsikin ko mga BOBONG justices na yan kong noon iniimpeach si convicted thief justice nato corona ay wala silang kibo dahil takot na takot dahil baka mawala ang sariling pakinabang ngayon ay nagpapakita nang nabobohan…Kilala na namin kayo mga TUTAng justices, Mahiya naman sana kayo sa pinaggagawa ninyo.

    • 31.2
      springwoodman says:

      Justice Carpio said we should watch his judicial decisions.

      Conchita Carpio-Morales said, “Institutional integrity starts with personal integrity”.

      Personal integrity relates to all decisions, whether large or small, judicial or not.

      So in the small matter of flag-raising ceremonies, Justice Carpio at al must observe personal integrity. It is a matter of law and, therefore, a matter of judicial institutional integrity.

    • 31.3
      leona says:

      Attending flag ceremony (every Monday?). Is there a law on that? Or it is a mere “regulation” by someone or group in the SC? Then “pledge of allegiance” too? If a justice or et al., does not attend, keeps on not attending that, what happens? Disloyalty? Not true Pilipino? Etc.? During the time of ex-CJ Corona, there is that ceremony? Di ba? But, what was the low poll survey of the SC as re to some of its decisions, flip-flopping, TROs, “letters” from lawyers re: PALEA Case, atbpa? In short, despite attending that ceremony, it couldn’t raise the people’s trust on the Court. Is that it? I do not see waking up so early a.m. just to attend that and again sing and give the pledge. They have done that so many thousands of times already! Wa-Ay epekto yan!’

      Dapat, laging ng X-Ray machine doon, so it can be seen who are really not true Pilipino. Let us not waste too much show such as that ceremony every Monday.

      What counts and should be watched is the quality of the performance of the work in that department of government. Never mind attending that “EVERY MONDAY MORNING!” One is still a true Pilipino without that.

      • 31.3.1
        leona says:

        What is the penalty under the law R.A. 8941 for not attending? Has anyone been punished? Has anyone been stripped of what? None? Justices of the Court not attending? VIP violators yan! If the law cannot be enforced even on justices, why the law in the first place? Right infront of everybody’s noses and nothing is done for non-attendees!

        • 31.3.1.1
          springwoodman says:

          @leona

          Let us not talk about the fact that the flag is the symbol of the country. Let us not talk about disrespect for the flag is equivalent to disrespect for the country. Let us not talk about the law. Let us not talk about betrayal of trust. Let us not talk about impeachments.

          Rather let us talk about little things. Let us talk about how little things mean a lot.

          You know how touching it is, as the song goes, when a loved one says how nice you look even when you feel you’re not, or when a loved one sends the “warmth of a secret smile”? Whew, that sends shivers down my spine. And you know how, as a Mom or Dad or even as a grandparent, how the spontaneous hug of child gives whole meanings to the word “love”?

          Surely you have been the recipient of such little things. Surely you have been the giver.

          Now I know it is a long stretch to compare such acts with attending a flag ceremony so early on Monday mornings when you would rather have another minute in the warmth of the bed or another cup of that magnificent coffee. And, no, you don’t have to do this every Monday morning.

          But that is how certain moments in life is and should be: a small symbolic act confirms our intentions. It reveals the bigger truth of where our passions lie.

          Smile. :-)

          • 31.3.1.1.1
            filipino_mom says:

            But that is how certain moments in life is and should be: a small symbolic act confirms our intentions. It reveals the bigger truth of where our passions lie.

            very nicely put @springwoodman. thumbs up.

          • 31.3.1.1.2
            leona says:

            Thanks for your smile…the problem is, since I am the ponente justice to kill that Cybercrime law and its libel provisions, and I am still lying on my bed finishing my thoughts on the rationale or reasons to kill that law, making me get up so early just to attend that flag ceremony and forget my almost finished rationale to be put into writing upon arrival at 9 a.m. at the SC bldg, I FORGOT my rationale thoughts then! I sang Bayan Magiliw and took my Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag & Country. Now, all my Bretheren in Court will have to wait for some another weeks to bring my “decision” to finish to kill that law! While CPMers continues to bully-HO the inserter at Raissa’s BLOG!

      • 31.3.2
        gil G says:

        @Leona

        Do we need to be rewarded to do a little bit of patriotism? It’s the Philippines flag we are respecting here, not the justices or the supreme court. Do you advise the younger generations to ignore this “tradition” because when they get older it doesn’t matter anyway? Because they won’t get popular by reciting the “pledge of allegians” every Monday morning? It’s a shame. We all grew up respecting the Flag and now when we are facing our oblivion in life we suddenly don’t give importance to what we believed in.

    • 31.4
      Mel says:

      Chief Justice ML Sereno’s warning to Monday Flag Ceremony Truants?

      Chief Justice now requires SC employees to attend flag-raising ceremony

      MANILA, Philippines — Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno issued last Friday a memorandum reminding all employees at the Supreme Court to attend the flag-raising ceremony every Monday morning.

      Court employees, who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to mediamen, revealed this to reporters.

      The memo was not intended for release to the media because it was an internal memo, according to the sources.

      Source: By Jerome Aning Philippine Daily Inquirer. 9:42 pm | Sunday, September 30th, 2012

      READ the whole story at newsinfo inquirer net/280268/chief-justice-now-requires-sc-employees-to-attend-flag-raising-ceremony

    • 31.5
      Johnny Lin says:

      Agree with Sereno putting out this flag ceremony reminder because it is part of the official obligation of a government employee? As CJ it is her duty to remind everyone of their patriotic duty under the law. Sereno inherited the rule. All SC employees, not only the justices, are put on notice. If one is non compliant, admonishment accordingly with internal memo would ensue. That is fairness as it could be. The memo was not given only to justices. Give credit to Sereno for instituting discipline to spoiled SC employees and their complaint is basically to fodder intrigue among justices and to protect their own selfish interest not to go to work early every Monday.

      Also agree with Justice Carpio that “do not look on the flag ceremony attendance but at their decisions”.
      Attending a flag ceremony will not enhance their knowledge but open defiance to a government office rule under the law is a test of their intelligence and simple obedience to the law. If the justices could not follow reasonably their own law, then, they don’t have the moral ascendancy dispensing justice.

      We do not expect every employee or justices to be present every Monday in the flag raising. Yet their absence must not be habitual!

    • 31.6
      Rallie Florencio Cruz says:

      I am one hundred percent agreeing with you in your opinion Mr. Rene-Ipil.
      With what this members of Supreme Court have been doing lately, it clearly state that they need a total revamp on its membership.

    • 31.7
      inagi says:

      Mr. Singit…. strikes back!

  9. 30
    Trigz says:

    Thanks for this, Raissa. I think a more in-your-face definition of Sottomy would be “sneakily inserting something into the wrong hole.” :>

  10. 29
    baycas says:

    Off-topic:

    No to UNA…

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/279790/2013-elections-battle-lines-drawn

    And the “Three Shades of Grey”…

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2012/09/liberal-party-una-party-thumbnails.jpg

    No to Escudero, Legarda, and Llamanzares.

    • 29.1
      Johnny Lin says:

      Agree to dump Escudero, Legarda and Poe if they dont insist to drop their names from inclusion in one party.

      Choose either LP or UNA!

      Binay already said that if they don’t join their rallies or srties, they will be dropped.

      The three shades of grey must accept the challenge of Binay!

      • 29.1.1
        Mel says:

        Hey Johnny, I refer you to comment #63.1of ‘Was Senator Sotto lying?’

        That is if it (#63.1 – ) is not yet under moderation or select filtered.

        • 29.1.1.1
          Johnny Lin says:

          @Mel

          I still remember your suggestion to us and @baycas to spearhead a senatorial candidates evaluation. Is that what you are pointing at #63?
          In @joe america, preliminary assessment was commented whom to vote and dump with reasonings.

          After Oct 5, the deadline for filing COC, will post my individual evaluation and personal opinionons of each candidate and the reason for preferentially selecting each one. Sen Drilon, LP campaign manager, already expressed in interview, Inquirer, that he will utilize extensively the social media in their campaigning. That means (US) the Netizens.

          De Venecia quits senate race, the question is will Nancy Binay replace him?

          Here is a scoop from my spy in UNA!
          A month ago, Nancy was being touted to be included in UNA roster. The first group to oppose her candidacy are Binay advisers from Balay and self interest government contractors group sidelined financially and momentarily by PNoy ” daan matuwid”, they do not want to stir the hornet’s nest unnecessarily, a logical tactic. We will hear from Binay himself that UNA election agenda is pro PNoy, the same strategy employed when they dumped Mar Roxas. Underground silence but vocal non attack on Aquino.

          Their reason: they did not want to pre-empt the exposure of Binay name prematurely prior to 2016.

          Her candidacy could open up topics of unexplained wealth, the COA Heidi Mendoza testimony on Elema Binay graft case and the political careers of Binay children, Nancy is representative and the son is mayor. Both children are wealthy on their own without known sources of income except political office.

          • 29.1.1.1.1
            Mel says:

            Johnny, I wrote this last night, “… comment #63.1of ‘Was Senator Sotto lying?'”

            Just visited RR’s blogsite this Am, now it is Comment #64.1‘Was Senator Sotto lying?’

            I have my hunches…

            I’m not really sure if you guys can see my comments (even this one), but definitely it is not under moderation since I posted it last night. But my referral to you has something to do with this news article –

            – Why Sotto must read Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law
            by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 10/01/2012 7:59 PM | Updated as of 10/01/2012 8:11 PM
            – www abs-cbnnews com/-depth/10/01/12/why-sotto-must-read-jan-24-2012-senate-journal

            And my follow up comments;

            BEGIN

            Mel says:
            October 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm
            Dissecting the paragraph of inferences. fill in the gaps, if you wish.

            On page 6, line 37, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph, to wit:

            4. LIBEL – THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS OF LIBEL …

            – What Bill or reference material does this point to “On page 6, line 37″? from what document is the source? (Bill ???)

            – the ‘Sponsor’, it is Senator Angara. Right? that Bill stated on the Jan. 24 Senate journal?

            – “the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph”. Who is this ‘Body’? Who composes this Body? Is Senator T Sotto part of this ‘Body’?

            – By semantics and literal interpretation, Sen T Sotto may be right.
            He didn’t physically or literally insert the Libel Clause or Section 4 to the Cybercrime Prevention BILL.

            That Bill version they refer to. Which one? They have several versions, which Bill version. Double check your Bill docu references…

            Reply

            Mel says:
            October 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm
            BTW, read err re-read (decipher) the phrase used in that journal “as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor”.

            ‘… as proposed’, ‘… and accepted’

            just at the nick of time before some publication?

            Reply

            Mel says:
            October 1, 2012 at 9:05 pm
            Addendum

            Dissecting the paragraph of or for inferences.

            Save, just at the nick of time before a sequel publication?

            I have follow up questions if there are any takers.

            Until then, good pm.

            END

          • 29.1.1.1.2
            Mel says:

            Johnny you wrote, “I still remember your suggestion to us and @baycas to spearhead a senatorial candidates evaluation. Is that what you are pointing at #63?” as above.

            NO

            Though your query is good. I thought my initial suggestion was incomplete due to space limitations.

            Not really sure now if it is plausible.

            However, it is for the CPM online community to participate in a series of online surveys, exchange of party or candidate choice (s), support or dissent from national (senate) to local by district, province, city.

        • 29.1.1.2
          Johnny Lin says:

          Mel, wrote a reply to tou, was lost in transition.

          • 29.1.1.2.1
            Johnny Lin says:

            @Mel
            Posted different reply.

            Just read the comment #63.1 about Noynoy attending Enrile book launching.

            Pres Aquino signed cybercrime law
            Aquino attended Enrile book launching.
            Lately Aquino, in my opinion is getting poor advice from his people.
            1. Was it intentional or inadvertent from his advisers is the question?
            2. Was it political in PNoy’s mind? Signing of bill was payback to Angara and attendance was payback to Enrile on their Corona impeachment votes.

            My opinion:
            1. Aquino was misled by his advisers on the bill. He was told on the crucial benefits of the bill on crime prevention of cybersex and identity theft but was not explained the detailed intricacies of lockdown and libel. Besides, in his mind he was supporting Angara. They do not have a choice now except to defend the bill because it was signed already, which is face saving maneuver. Who is saving PNoy? They enlisted Escudero who is credible with the youth and Guingona who was primary opponent of the bill. De Lima pre-empted the verdict with her DOJ input
            Verdict: my SC spy says a TRO will be issued by next Tuesday.

            2. Aquino appearance on Enrile book launching was wrong all the way! He should have asked Enrile to give him advance copy of the book to read before agreeing to attend. His presence was taken advantage by Enrile to promote sale of his book by presenting Aquino the first copy.
            Enrile lied in his book. Here is the proof:
            1. Marcos in his diary recovered un Malacanang when he fled stated that Martial law was declared with the connivance of Enrile by faking an ambush
            2. When EDSA I was at its height, Enrile together with Ramos declared this statement, “my ambush was fake in order for Marcos to have additional legitimate reason to declare martial law”
            3. In his book, he claimed he thought the ambush was for real because if he did not ride in his security aide car, he would have been kiled by the real bullets that riddled his personal car. His car was mangled in the rear by the impact of ammos. This is the first time he revealed he was riding in the security car. Enrile thinks we readers are stupid. That is why it was a fake ambush because he was riding in another car so he escaped injury. Real bullets would be used on his personal car for authenticity to show serious damage to the car.

            This book is about Enrile. His son Jackie’s past is irrelevant to his political travails. Here is the epitome of sinister ambition to keep the family name in political atena.
            Johnny Enrile also used his book to enhance the current senatorial candidacy of his son by making an alibi on the death of actor Alfie Anido which is the guillotine hanging over his son’s head in the coming election. Enrile employed Rico Puno’ s tactic. Give the name of a dead person as the primary alibi. Enrile named Fabian Ver who implicated his son on the death of Anido while Puno pointed to Jesse Robredo that he knew before he died he was resigning from DILG instead of being pressured to resign.

            Both Enrile and Puno belong to Binay’s camp. Is it a coincidence, they employed similar tactic to blame dead people?
            He he he!

            • Cha says:

              Below is a link to a copy of Sunday Times issue Feb 26, 1986, reporting Enrile’s confession of the “staged” assassination attempt:

              https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151242077192755&set=p.10151242077192755&type=1&ref=nf

              • Mel says:

                thanks @Cha.

                i recall during and after the Edsa People Power Revolution.

                PTV, ABS-CBN, 7 had several interview stints, no holds barred – up close revelations with the mutiny leaders, civic leaders, pro marcos admin with the different program hosts then. Post Edsa PPR, interviews went on for several days, weeks…

                These stations should dig their archives for interviews. The public and private libraries should have copies too of news papers during the post Edsa PP revolution.

                During the live events, JPE did confess on air by radio and tv the real score of the staged ambush and the truth behind the martial law proclamation. It became apparent when they were appealing for people help (human barricades) to rally in front of the main gates for opposite camps along edsa.

              • Mel says:

                JPE and cyber libel

                Written by RENE SAGUISAG
                Published on 05 October 2012

                THe Inquirer asked: “But didn’t he [JPE] himself tell the public on Feb. 22, 1986, as he and . . . Ramos barricaded themselves at Camp Aguinaldo after the discovery of their coup plot. . . , that the ambush was fake? Together with Ramos and [soldiers] that formed the Reform the AFP Movement (RAM), Enrile, speaking on radio, confessed, among other things, that Marcos ordered the staging of the ambush to contrive a final act by his [foes] that forced him to place the country under martial law.

                The Filipinos forgave him, and trooped to Edsa by the millions to shield him and Ramos and their troops against an assault by Marcos’ military.” PDI, September 30, 2012, A8, col. 1.

                If JPE lies, will son Jackie with his Alfie Anido problem? Fruit does not fall far from the tree? The version in the auto-bio that there was no fake ambush seems to be revisionism by one who has done good, validating that all autobiography is vanity (Durants). Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?

                I borrowed a copy of JPE’s auto-bio last Tuesday, but had time only to skim it, with all else I have to do. Kindly repeatedly invited to the book launch by JPE’s staff and the sponsoring Lopezes, I could not go. I was curious on JPE’s takes on certain items. Like 1) JPE’s supposed 1986 shouting match with PCGG’s Ramon Diaz, presumably over ill-gotten wealth. Gutsy of RD as the rest of us had been tsunamied by the JPE-FVR getaway. No mention. 2) How JPE got word on the need to meet Prez Cory who fired him on Nov. 23, 1986, a Sunday, and whether what happened was what he had expected. Page 665. Cryptic. Elliptical 3) Our early post-Edsa meets on freeing all political detainees, etc. In Club Filipino and Camp Crame meets were difficult and emotional. Uncle Jovy Salonga and I were committed to release all such detainees, a battle cry of years, which unimplemented, would put our credibility on the line right off. FVR was taciturn. JPE was against, as to the extreme left. Page 660. JPE wrote about the Ver-Edna romantic rumors. Page 482. What about his own love life? Page 37. GFs, he said in one memorable interview.

                JPE wrote that on the night of Feb. 25, 1986: “I met President Aquino in an open area behind the house of Mrs. Josephine Reyes. With her were Jimmy Ongpin, Nene Pimentel, and [ex-]Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Joker Arroyo, Ramon Mitra, Jojo Binay, Ernie Maceda, Rene Saguisag, and others. . . . President Aquino asked someone to call Ambassador Bosworth and she talked to him. All of a sudden, I heard her exclaim, “No! I do not want him here. I want him out of the country!” I was certain her remarks meant President Marcos.” Page 635. “. [S]hortly after her oath-taking, Cory held court at the head of the huge rectangular table in the cabinet room where Marcos had presided. Doy Laurel as Vice President sat normally to her right and I sat next to Doy as the Defense Secretary. To her left was Joker, her first Executive Secretary, who was pretty much the one steering the meeting. The rest of the cabinet members like Nene P, Neptali G, Rene Saguisag, Bobbit Sanchez, Ernie M, and the others occupied the other seats.” Page 656. To those still doubting I was Present at the Creation, belat kayo lahat. But, As Cory, Jr. I could not move freely as I wished. JPE, I was told, would not touch our food in our Cabinet meets. Poison concern?

                READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AT: manilatimes net/index php/opinion/columnist1/32522-jpe-and-cyber-libel

              • Johnny Lin says:

                @cha
                Thanks for the link. I was quoting from memory read in 1986.

                Enrile creatively fudged the truth in his book. He already had 3 versions on his “staged ambush” everytime he opens his mouth on the subject.
                His particular memory revelation depends on what stage he wants to stand on

                During martial law he was with the dictator Marcos to wield power
                During EDSA I, he sided with the the Anti Marcos people power to foster his treachery
                This time, he is muddling the truth to fraudulently exaggerate his legacy.

                Columnist Doronila identified him accurately in his latest opinion,
                “Enrile is the Sorcerer’s apprentice”

              • raissa says:

                Thanks for this, Cha.

              • baycas says:

                @Cha,

                Thanks.

                In corroboration…

                http://junbriosolawandbehold.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-struggle-between-truth-and-falsehood.html

                Enrile’s 1986 revelation
                Was an act of contrition

                His 2012 obfuscation
                Was to escape condemnation

                Enrile mastered the art of saving his own skin…

              • leona says:

                @Cha, I read the highlighted link above. Now, I really cannot know which among the “three versions” of lies and truths are the lies or truths? Like the pea that is kept moving inside 3 cups or shells on a table, so fast are the hands, it’s eye-boggling the mind cannot follow!

                Do we need a glass or transparent table and look under what cap or shell is the pea?

                I guess so, to know the truth of the pea!

  11. 28
    rene says:

    Cant wait to read that Sotto article. I know i will be fired up reading the article.. Tnx mam Raissa

  12. 27
    David says:

    ‘Bloody Monday': Hackers strike gov’t websites anew….

    “I think the better venue for them is to really show their protests in a proper forum rather than hacking government websites,” reports quoted Palace Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda as saying.

    http://ph.news.yahoo.com/-bloody-monday—hackers-strike-gov-t-websites-anew.html

    And where and when will this forum occur? the stupid ass Sottobomination law was inserted at midnight, hurriedly signed into law, so forum, what forum? Who will listen? Who cares?

    You can thank your brain dead, egg shell ego, senator for this problem. I do not agree with hacking, absolutely hate it, cost tax payers billions in govt funds trying to outsmart the hackers puts govt security and business at high risk while hackers see it as a hobby, gaining a laugh or two. The money can be better spent building bridges to nowhere. How much do we also spend on antiviral software/malware which has financial ramifications on all computer users. Well done Senator. You really opened a can of worms. Hope you get the attention you so well deserve.

    Why not just abolish the senate, if they are not here to help Filipinos, at least that way, they can not hurt Filipinos.

  13. 26
    bernardino says:

    i don’t understand why so many are blaming Sotto ofr this law. the only person to blame is the president who signed it bill into law. ultimately he is responsible. Sotto or whoever else can insert anything they want so if the president signs the bill, then it is obvious he concurs, approves, and supports it.

    this is no different from buying a car, applying for a credit card, or home mortgage. read the fine print. the president should have read the fine print. no matter what the salesmen/lender tells you, always read the fine print.

    blame Aquino for not reading the fine print before signing the bill into law. you are letting him off the hook by focusing on Sotto.

    • 26.1
      David says:

      No more fine print in the states. I think the consumer protection agency acted on that issue. Still you are right, Pnoy does have a lot of answering to do for this botched law inserted by a pseudo senator. It is also the voters fault for putting the idiot in office, but voters were under the impression he was upfront and honest, no fine print there, what you see is what you get. A flower child, a blooming idiot.

    • 26.2
      Joe America says:

      Very likely, the President acted with the advice of his legal staff or whoever is assigned to vet bills. The President can read it but not fully grasp the ramifications. Many who read it did not grasp the significance. Maybe because they read it several times BEFORE Sotto inserted the libel language and were not anticipating such a material addition WITHOUT DEBATE.

      Or perhaps the President did not want to delay the other important provisions simply because he did not like the libel clause, or believed the problems could be handled through the detailed rule-making that goes along with implementation of the bill.

      Sotto is the person who first plagiarized, then blamed the whistle blowers, then threatened, and indeed acted on the threat by inserting language that he could use punitively. Based on these acts, many believe Sotto is a scoundrel of no ethical bearing or grasp of democratic freedoms, or if he grasps them, he is willing to curtail them. President Aquino is not a scoundrel.

      • 26.2.1
        Bernardino says:

        Aquino signed it into law. If he delegated authority to his staff to read and prepare a summary for him to read before signing anything, he is still responsible for anything he signs. I agree with you that Sotto pliagiarized multiple timies and have admitted inserting the section in the bill, it is still the president’s responsibility to make sure that he understands what he is signing.No one can argue with that!

    • 26.3
      Noel says:

      Ultimately it’s the President’s onus, but a bill gets debated first in both houses before being presented to the President for signature, if both houses okay it. If it is a last minute insertion after having been debated upon
      and passed by both houses, then presented to the President, then there really is something very wrong in
      the way we make our laws.

      • 26.3.1
        Bernardino says:

        don’t sign anything unles you know what is in it! I can only assume that Aquino “assumed” he knew what was in the bill. He was duped by Sotto or by his staff who may have prepared a summary for him. bottom line he signed it into law.

    • 26.4
      springwoodman says:

      One must differentiate between primary cause and secondary causes. Sotto is the primary cause. He is responsible for the insertion of the libel clause.

      • 26.4.1
        curveball says:

        kaya nga meron mga secretary o assistant para check at re-check ang bawat bill na ipapasa kay Pnoy para pimahan di ba? kung bawat isa ng mga bill ay babasahin pa nya, ano na gagawin ng mga staffs nya? napagusapan naman siguro nila ito bago pirmahan at sinabi ng mga staffs na ok kaya pirma na din si Pnoy.
        Ano kaya ngayon ang nasa kalooban ng mga senador na pumirma, mga president’s staffs na nagbasa (kung binasa nga ng husto) at ni Pnoy sa mga nangyayari?
        Lalo na at maraming ng hackings sa goverment website na dahil sa bill na ito?

        • 26.4.1.1
          vander anievas says:

          sa ganang akin lang, maaaring may pagkukulang sa parte ng staff o secretariat ng malakanyang na siyang nagpaperma ng bill na ito sa pangulo. may posibilidad na ang insertion ay maaaring hindi napansin at inako na lang ng malakanyang na nalalaman nila upang sila ay hindi mapahiya. ito’y dapat na maituwid dahil marami na ang apektado. ang mga mamamayan ay naliligalig na sa bill na ito. hindi ito mabuti sa ating bansa. nagiging counter productive na ang pagtugon ng marami sa bill na ito.
          nananawagan ako sa mahal nating pangulo na huwag ipagwalambahala ang bagay na ito. dahil masasayang ang magaganda na nilang napasimulan kung mababatikan ng isang bagay na alam nating kagagawan lang ng iilan…

    • 26.5
      Johnny Lin says:

      @bernardino

      Please read comment #111 in the blog “who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute”

      • 26.5.1
        Bernardino says:

        It doesn’t make a difference. it was signed by Aquino after Sotto inserted it, not before. He signed it, he is responsible for it, plain and simple. I’m not protecting Sotto. He doesn’t belong in the senate or any elected office for that matter. but I won’t blame him for this.

        • 26.5.1.1
          Johnny Lin says:

          Gov Reyes of Palawan is accused of masterminding, financing, planning the murder of Dr. Ortega. The triggerman, that is who fired the deadly shot on Ortega was captured. Since the triggerman was the guilty person who fired the killing shot, then following your personal judgment Gov Reyes should not be equally blamed! Governor is on the run now.

          “It is not about protecting Sotto”. It is about rule of law, equality and justice. Sotto masterminded, inserted the libel clause. He does not deserve blame at all per your theory. You fully exonerated Sotto. According to your theory, Only Pres Aquino is guilty for signing the law. Just like the triggerman, eh?

          “It does not make a difference”, is that it?
          Really!

          He he he.

          • 26.5.1.1.1
            Bernardino says:

            apples and oranges. regardless of who inserted what in the bill, it is only a bill. as soon as the president signs it, it is now law. the president is responsible making what was inserted by who, law. i really don’t care if it was sotto or anyone else. the president, whoever he or she is must know what they are signing.

            • Johnny Lin says:

              The premise of comment #26 is to whom the blame should be directed.

              You wrote this, read again:
              “I don’t understand why so many are BLAMING Sotto for the law”.
              Naturally, without a bill, there is no law.

              Blame must be squarely placed on the architect and builder of the bill or structure. Legislation of bills usually progress into becoming laws based on consultations between the legislative bill proponents and executive signatory office. A bill does not have a chance to be approved by plenary and signed into law unless the author notified the office of the president beforehand. Sotto inserted the libel with explicit approval of the bill author, Sen Angara, and knowledge of the president’s men like the legislative liaison official. That is the nature of laws approved or vetoed by the president. So far Angara was defending wordings of the law, Sotto admitted responsibility on the libel clause and the executive office is defending the signing into law. This is absolute truth, so equally they are all to be blamed.

              • Mel says:

                If I may butt in, Johnny you wrote, “Sotto inserted the libel with explicit approval of the bill author, Sen Angara,… ”

                Please read my reply-comment to you at #29.1 with the date October 2, 2012 at 5:30 am.

                It would be best if Sotto’s chief of staff Villacorta be asked once again why his Senator still keeps protesting his innocence that he didn’t insert it.

                Once again, I quote that part in the Jan. 24 Senate journal for cybercrime law;

                On page 6, line 37, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph, to wit:

                4. LIBEL – THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS OF LIBEL …

                MY REPEAT COMMENTS for clarification.

                … as proposed’, ‘… and accepted’

                – What Bill or reference material does this point to “On page 6, line 37″? from what document is the source? (Bill ???)

                – the ‘Sponsor’, it is Senator Angara. Right? that Bill stated on the Jan. 24 Senate journal?

                – “the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph”. Who is this ‘Body’? Who composes this Body? Is Senator T Sotto part of this ‘Body’?

                By semantics and literal interpretation, Sen T Sotto may be right.

                He didn’t physically or literally insert the Libel Clause or Section 4 to the Cybercrime Prevention BILL.

                My Original comment entry was at #63.1, TODAY it is Comment #64.1‘Was Senator Sotto lying?’

                … my referral to you has something to do with this news article –

                – Why Sotto must read Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law
                by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 10/01/2012 7:59 PM | Updated as of 10/01/2012 8:11 PM

                – www abs-cbnnews com/-depth/10/01/12/why-sotto-must-read-jan-24-2012-senate-journal

              • Johnny Lin says:

                “Inserted” first used by Raissa in previous blog. Malig report used same word “inserted”

                Libel provision was “Proposed or suggested by Sotto.
                Accepted or approved by author, Angara while discussing in caucus or privately probably.

                Inserted probably referred to its addition later into the original bill prior to voting.. When exactly? I don’t know but definitely before signing into law by Aquino

                The body could be referring to committee or author/co-authors of bill.

                In my understanding from Raissa blog, “insertion” meant Sotto was prime proponent to include the libel provision, that is he was primary responsible to suggest, propose, recommend or insert or add the provision into the original bill which was approved or accepted by author, Angara.

                Not literally sneaking the libel provision into the bill after voting of the bill in the senate floor.

              • raissa says:

                If Sen. Sotto had not raised the inclusion of online libel into the bill during the January 24 period of amendments, then it would not be in the Senate bill. So Sotto is the author. Senator Angara, who acceded to Sotto’s insertion, is the Senate bill’s main author.

              • Mel says:

                I just read the replies now.

                Thanks Johnny, springwoodman and Raïssa.

                Are there any more takers from the CPMers?

                I reserve my reply later.

                But if I may suggest Raïssa, ‘It would be best if Sotto’s chief of staff Villacorta be asked once again why his Senator still keeps protesting his innocence that he didn’t insert it.’


                One unsolicited tidbit.
                In round table discussions, a proposal is one of many, acceptance of one from many is better, for approval by a majority of a caucus (body) for acceptance to incorporate (or insertion) without dissention is collegial (popular).

                The above quotation (“On page 6, line 37, …”) from the Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law is irrefutable. That balance of truth weighs on the side of the embattled Senator.

              • Mel says:

                THIS IS MY SECOND TRY TO SUBMIT.
                ———–

                I just read the replies now.

                Thanks Johnny, springwoodman and Raïssa.

                Are there any more takers from the CPMers?

                I reserve my reply later.

                But if I may suggest Raïssa, ‘It would be best if Sotto’s chief of staff Villacorta be asked once again why his Senator still keeps protesting his innocence that he didn’t insert it.’


                One unsolicited tidbit.
                In round table discussions, a proposal is one of many, acceptance of one from many is better, for approval by a majority of a caucus (body) for acceptance to incorporate (or insertion) without dissention is collegial (popular).

                The above quotation (“On page 6, line 37, …”) from the Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law is irrefutable. That balance of truth tilts on the side of the embattled Senator.

              • Mel says:

                “Ang proposal ko, hindi insertion, because I proposed it on the Senate floor, open plenary. Ano bang pinagsasabi nilang insertion? Para bang sinasabi nilang merong sinister? Ang mahirap sa kanila bintang sila nang bintang [My proposal to include libel in the cybercrime law was not an insertion, it was proposed in open plenary, so why do they keep using the word ‘insertion’ and implying there’s something sinister?. The problem with them is they just blindly keep accusing people],” – Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III.

                Source: www interaksyon com/article/44595/sotto-to-chiz-rush-pending-bill-decriminalizing-libel-instead-of-repealing-sec–4

                BTW, the interaksyon news web link quoted in the CBS web link associated or embedded in Raïssa’s paragraph – “By the way, I’m glad Senator Vicente Sotto has finally admitted it was he who had inserted the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Act.”.

                Which was the source link of BARNABY LO of CBS NEWS on September 28, 2012, 3:08 PM, the source Interaksyon news weblink can not be found. I tried looking for that source link in the Interaksyon com site but can not find it. That CBS news ‘written by Barnaby Lo is now quoted also in The Manila Standard and Forbes.

                Meanwhile, Sen. Vicente Sotto III makes no apology for being one of two senators to insert the provision for libel at the very last minute.

                “Yes, I did it. I inserted the provision on libel. Because I believe in it and I don’t think there’s any additional harm,” Sotto was quoted as saying in the local news website Interaksyon com.

              • Mel says:

                As a CPMer and in the spirit of Fair play, the critical written document here is the Jan. 24 Senate Journal for Cybercrime Law.

                As for Sen Sotto’s Chief-of-Staff Hector Villacorta in reference to the following piece;

                It was Senator Sotto who inserted libel as a “content-related offense” in Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Law), his Chief-of-Staff Hector Villacorta confirmed to me today in an interview.

                “I can verify that,” Villacorta told me.

                Source: Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute? – RR

                “I can verify that,” is neither a clear nor solid confirmation.

                Read comment #64.1 of “Was Senator Sotto lying?”

                Good or bad publicity, it is good PR campaign for a Senator Politician. Tito Sotto may be unwittingly benefitting from this raucous. The Jan. 24 2012 Senate Journal absolves him.

                To equate a proposal with Cut err Copy en’ Paste, Insert, or penetrate with a section 4. He has the last laugh.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                LOL! Sotto was complaining, then contradicted his own complaint.

                There was an original bill.

                Sotto proposed, suggested or recommended in plenary to “Add” another provision on the bill. Others used the word “Insertion” because technically he added something into the original bill.

                What is the difference? What is the issue?

                There is, if Bill Clinton is the idol on semantics.
                “it depends what “is” means”
                “Oral sex is not sex per se”

                He he he

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Posted reply, lost in transition again

                Sign of progress, too much traffic
                More the merrier, hurrah!

                He he he.

              • Mel says:

                sa dami ng pills, i mean bills. hindi nila alam kung anu tuloy ang posisyon na gagawin nila at kung alin o sinu ang mau-una.

                ba’t hindi na lang nila pag abalahan ang RH Bill. nakalimutan na.
                tuloy – maraming na-aanakang wala sa plano.
                iba ang nabubuo.

              • springwoodman says:

                @mel,

                What is the issue here? Is it whether Sotto is responsible for the insertion of the libel clause? If it is, the body of Raissa’s blog above has this to say:

                “By the way, I’m glad Senator Vicente Sotto has finally admitted it was he who had inserted the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Act.”

                Literally speaking, you are right: Sotto may not have physically inserted the clause. More likely it was done by an aide of the Sponsor.

                Semantically speaking, Sotto was lying in his initial denial of responsibility.

            • springwoodman says:

              No one is protecting the President. True, he is ultimately responsible for turning the bill into law. No argument there. But is it the claim that Sotto is blameless if he inserted the libel clause?

              There is the act of signing, secondary cause. Before that there was the act of inserting, primary cause.

              If one refuses to differentiate between primary, secondary, tertiary, etc causes, then blame US – the Filipino voter – for electing PNoy into office. We put him there so we are responsible for all his actions.

              But the causal chain is endless, and can go all the way back to Adam and Eve. But wait… isn’t God responsible for all this?

              • jeff.justice-born-and-raised-in-cebu says:

                It is also possible the insertion was pre-meditated if only to test and even expose the vulnerabilities of this administration. Heck, I would even hazard a guess Pnoy’s ineptitude and incompetence may be well known among his former peers in the senate.

                It is not far-fetched the senate leadership is aware of this “singit” provision, a bait na-naka-lusot and swak na swak. Pnoy simply obliged and his work habits begin to stink.
                He signed without having a clear understanding… to the point of carelessness even reckless if I may add, especially after they attempted to defend it for damage control.

                After the Robredo & Puno “mini-series”, including the quirino grandstand debacle; sealed/stamped by the PNP firearm-google affair, I need not see anymore to convince myself it was all honest mistakes. He is simply incompetent and unfit for the presidency.

                Just wondering what other important documents he signed without looking.
                All in all, this could be a symptom of a deeper problem.

                There is a local term: “bara-bara”.

          • 26.5.1.1.2
            Rene-Ipil says:

            Bernardino, Johnny Lin@26.5

            Let us stick to the issue which is whom to blame for the enactment of the cybercrime law.  Sotto or Pnoy.  

            I think we have to blame them both.  But I believe that the participation of Sotto  was premeditated and deliberate while that of Pnoy was a mistake due to carelessness, complacency and misplaced trust. Sotto was the mastermind in conspiracy maybe with other senators and Pnoy’s staff, while Pnoy was used to deodorize or legitimize the plot to undermine netizens.

            Conspiracy is done even if the conspirators did not plan or agree together. It is enough that they have unity of purpose.

  14. 25
  15. 24
    baycas says:

    “Titosotto” already inserted in the Urban Dictionary…

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=titosotto

  16. 23
    jericjed says:

    guys, what’s your stand on chiz’s admission regarding his “oversight”, and that “he would file a bill seeking amendments to the law in the coming days…”?

    • 23.1
      duquemarino says:

      Haste makes waste!!

      Ang dali naging batas ng cypbercrime prevention, ang bilis din naman aminin na kelangan ang amendment. Laughing stock tuloy ang legislative body at nasabit pa si PNoy for signing it into law. Had it been reviewed by the Malacanang bright boys, he could have exercised his veto power.

      In crafting a law the use of conjunctions “or” and “and” makes a lot of difference, ano pa kaya ang insertion ng questionable provisions.

    • 23.2
      chit navarro says:

      it is an affiration of hi humility – that he can accept his oversight and will do something to rectify it. It means he is for the country and he wants to serve – he is human, there are mistakes but he can accept them and will go out of his way to fix it.

      unliek other seantors…

    • 23.3
      vander anievas says:

      i welcome such a manly gesture. we all know that a person full of wisdom is gentleman enough to immediately accept his mistake. no one is perfect. dull and dumb doesn’t.

  17. 22
    agot says:

    Section 19 of the Cyber Crime Law cited by Father Bernas reads:

    “SEC. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. – When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data”.

    It does not seem to authorize the DOJ to search and seize the computer data. The authority of the DOJ is only upon finding that the computer data volates the the Act. Earlier sections of the law suggest that the finding of violation must by the regular courts.

  18. 21
    springwoodman says:

    I keep wondering why, if Sotto has been shown to have lied on insertion of the libel clause, why the Senate Committee on Ethics does not discipline him.

    Alan Cayetano, the chair of the committee, is up for re-election – as are members Honasan and Legarda.

    These re-electionists do NOT deserve to be returned to the Senate.

    • 21.1
      chit navarro says:

      It seems that Sotto is also the Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, so he can not fiel a case against himself, right?

      • 21.1.1
        springwoodman says:

        Sotto is an ex-officio member of the committee. Most probably because he is Majority Floor Leader.

        Any senator should be able to file action against Sotto for the committee to consider. Santiago, a committee member, who is always vocal is strangely silent. Honasan, also a member, does not seem to have the soldierly balls to attack. I do not expect much of the other members – Arroyo, Marcos, Lapid and Estrada (ex-officio). Sotto must have the goods on all these people.

        Cayetano, as chair, has primary responsibility to call a meeting. Sotto should recuse himself if he is the subject of discipline.

    • 21.2
      Joe America says:

      They are defining their values, aren’t they, through being complicit in the great silence? No for re-election. . A. Cayetano, Honasan, Legarda. Gross negligence at caretaking public interest.

      Thanks for naming the names. I’ll reinforce it on my site.

    • 21.3
      Bernardino says:

      the sad thing is that the alternative is to chose new candidates from the same political clan, enrile, estrada, aquino, etc. filipinos need beter choices to pick from. families also rule local elections. if the male family member becomes inelgible, the wife or son/daughter runs for the saem office held by the dad. sadly it is the nature of politics in the country. choise is slim to none.

  19. 20
    leona says:

    Reading Fr. Bernas’ “good and chilling” sides, the comment of the good Father is now pointed directly to Sen. Angara. Sen. Sotto’s was on the rider on libel provisions. The former (Sen. Angara) has to answer or explain the parts that Fr. Bernas’ pointed out like no warrant issued by a judge but only the DOJ, no probable cause but only prima facie evidence, etc. The points stated by Fr. Bernas are chilling and will touch to violate constitutional provisions specially on the Bill of Rights. Thank you Fr. Bernas, and Raissa for putting this out here.

    • 20.1
      leona says:

      add lang…That highlighted PhilStar news dated Aug. 31/2012 @12 a.m. by Raissa re Sen. Sotto’s “warning” …he says “many DIG for faults” and “answerable to God for their criticism.” Diggers for faults…” isn’t this good enough?

      Had the senator said “dig for false faults” iba yun and he’ll be right. If one dig for faults, will God punish the digger if the fault is correct? Yes, when false faults are dug up!

  20. 19
    Art Montesa says:

    Congratulations, Raissa and Alan – More Power to You!! I’m just wondering if the SC might not find this cybercime law unconstitutional.

  21. 18
    Art Montesa says:

    Congratulations, Raissa and Alan – More Power to You. Thank you for always taking up the cudgels for all of us. I’m just wondering if the SC is able to declare this law as unconstitutional.

  22. 17
    anton says:

    The New York-based Human Rights Watch said today: “A new Philippine “cybercrime” law drastically increases punishments for criminal libel and gives authorities excessive and unchecked powers to shut down websites and monitor online information,”

    http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/28/philippines-new-cybercrime-law-will-harm-free-speech

  23. 16
    kontrapilo says:

    There are times that I feel not writing any comments at all to any internet blog. I may not know I can be accused of what they call now as CYBER CRIME LAW. Ms. Raissa can you please extend some intelligent information on how to commit a cyber crime ? What are the ingredients to be a cyber criminal. I wish to know it so I will be the first earthling to be tried and maybe to be landed in jail. Is it not interesting, and honor to be the ONE.? SOTTOHELL ???

  24. 15
    vander anievas says:

    did sotto exposed all his sides so pinoys will appreciate his worth as a senator?

  25. 14
    Mel says:

    “Oh, by the way – NO, this is not the interesting topic I promised to write about Sotto. That’s coming next. You’d be surprised. I guess he will, too.” – RR

    It’s 8.25 am Monday, 01 Oct 2012 (AEST), how long will we wait?

    Wouldn’t like to miss or finish my meal with out the main course or dessert.
    How long should you stir and fry the dish of the week?

    I hope the Exposé could bring the House down. :smile:

  26. 13
    baycas says:

    All sides are important in order to shape a law. Sneaky individuals have no room in legislation.

  27. 12
    baycas says:

    They strike again…

    The hacktivists said: “We express our highest condemnation to the Bicameral Conference, especially to Sen. Vicente Sotto III, for inserting the online libel provisions, which are not present even in the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime penned by the Council of Europe, which was the basis for RA 10175.”

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/09/30/12/amid-appeals-palace-‘hacktivists’-strike-again

  28. 11
    yvonne says:

    And if I may add, the Asian Journal, published in California, also picked up on Raissa’s blog. Here is the link to Asian Journal editorial citing Raissa’s work:

    http://www.asianjournal.com/editorial/5-editorial/17333-freedom-of-cyber-expression.html

  29. 10
    Joe America says:

    Well, this article is plenty interesting enough, so the next one better be a humdinger.

    Libel is such a slippery slope, eh? Senator Sotto blames bloggers for harming him, totally denying the point that his plagiarism is the root cause. He finds words as a counter to the sharp language coming at him not good enough. He wants people in jail.

    You say this isn’t as serious as Marcos? This guy has a very dark mind, disjointed, split from any sense of personal responsibility for the criticism he receives. If he had guns, I sure wouldn’t trust him not to shoot.

    The cases you cite where you have been maliciously accused of things is also interesting. I think the standard for libel cannot be hurt feelings. Nor can it be that lots of people read the lie. Indeed, such negative publicity may be a part of the reason your readership is high. So perhaps you actually BENEFIT rather than suffer harm. And proving it one way or another is difficult and simply not worth the time.

    I think we – netizens and senators – have to readjust our sense of sensitivity in the internet age. Privacy is something to work at because it no longer occurs naturally. There are too many hunters out there, from google selling slippery ads and tracking your online clicks to friends tracking you down. Or enemies who pass along untrue stories to others because they are angry or small-minded.

    The cops and judges should be engaged only for cases where there is “material economic or physical harm”. Otherwise, words should be used to counter words. If I call Senator Sotto a small-minded jerk, I cause him no economic pain, and am actually trying to use those words constructively, to encourage him to think a little bigger and more respectfully of those with high values. You know, those who believe in intellectual property rights.

  30. 9
    yvonne says:

    To preserve our press freedom the new cyber libel law must be amended to be consistent with the principles of the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision, in Times vs. Sullivan, shielding the press from libel lawsuits by government officials unless they, the public officials, can prove actual malice on the part of the press.

    Likewise, the term “Press” must be clearly defined to include bloggers, columnist, and writers who use the internet as their means of communication and publishing, in addition to the traditional print media and radio/TV broadcast.

    • 9.1
      yvonne says:

      In Times vs. Sullivan, the court held that the burden of proof lies with the government officials to prove malice on the part of the Press, and not the other way around.

  31. 8
    pinay710 says:

    @raissa, excited ako at nate tense making my blood pressure boom rising sa paghihintay ng next article mo, marami na naman akong matututuhan. having lots of heartburn waiting for you.

  32. 7
    tagaDavao says:

    I am just an ordinary netizen, no political bone in my body, no journalistic hair in my head, just a plain and smple working, middle-class person who is an avid user of just one social network to connect with friends and families and i am a victim of cybercrime since november of last year. Posts against my person is still visible on FB upto now. I am very happy when the law against cybercrime was signed because i can now file charges against my aggresor and am certain that will be justly compensated for the sleepless nights, mental and emotional torture, anxiety, and other demons this has given me. I am sure this law was passed not because the authors want to suppress our freedom of speech but to protect those who were abused because of too much freedom of speech in the world wide web, a place where there is no boundary and security is almost non-existent. I admit that there are provisions in the law that need to be delicately defined, but i just hope that with the raucus that the bill has caused especiall to the media world, the ordinary netizens who are victims of defamatory statements like me, in the cyberworld will not be forgotten.

    • 7.1
      raissa says:

      Could you give us an idea what your case is about. Perhaps we could put our heads together on your case?

      • 7.1.1
        tagaDavao says:

        hi ms. raissa.. thank you very much for your reply.
        is it okay if i send u an email?

        • 7.1.1.1
          raissa says:

          Sure.

          • 7.1.1.1.1
            tagaDavao says:

            hi ms raissa, i sent u an email yesterday. i dont know if u have read it already or if u received it.

            but, i guess, it is now water under the bridge. Sen. Chiz Escudero has already filed a bill to repeal the online libel clause on the cybercrime law. and my tormentor will soon be rejoicing and more libelous statements coming my way…

  33. 6
    Rowena A. Burden, M.D. says:

    if he can lie to cebuano journalists during a Press Freedom Week forum about his sneaky insertion, make no mistake about it, he will exploit the libel clause of the cybercrime law to suppress our freedom… his grandfather must really be very dizzy from turning around in his grave tsk tsk tsk

    • 6.1
      Victin Luz says:

      Tito ” FINAGLER ” Sotto ……true @Rowena he will trick everybody about libel in the new law to suit his . unwarranted PROGRAMS as a senator.

  34. 5
    Johnny Lin says:

    Now that Raissa is read worldwide, CPMersand Filipino netizens must be in the forefront on 2013 election.
    Let us start the campaign NOT to elect those who Voted yes on Cybercrime bil.

    Unconstitutional laws could not be passed if we have honorable and intelligent lawmakers. We must make ourselves useful by active dissemination and participation in campaigning to elect new national leaders with highest regards to the welfare of the country and the people, not merely be contented with writing our sentiments on this blog.

    DO NOT VOTE FOR REELECTIONISTS SENATORS AND THEIR RELATIVES.

    DO NOT VOTE FOR SENATORS MEMBERS OF CORRUPT FAMILIES AND DYNASTIES LIKE BINAY, ENRILE, EJERCITO/ESTRADA, VILLAR, ANGARA.

    • 5.1
      leona says:

      From the newspapers many, men and women, all like Wanbol university grads are contemplating of running for public office, senator, congressman, governor, mayor, board member,atbpa! They many are publicly known to be nothing at all! SUS MA! It’s either notoriety, emptiness, shockingnesess, name it, many got it. The race in 2013 will be a gauge: ARE PILIPINO VOTERS MATURED, GETTING MATURED or GANON PA RIN?

      For the YOUTH …start learning now and up to 2013 and thereafter. Your are the future of this country. Pag umalis na kami, kayong naman ang mag hihirap.

      Dito sila makikilala: Guapo, Maganda, Sexy, Madaldal, Makulit, Maputi, Maitim, Mataa, Mababa, Payat, Mataba, Ambisyoso at Ambisyosa, Kapatid ng Trapo, Anak ng Trapo, Asawa ng Trapo, Pinsan ng Trapo, Apo ng Trapo, Mistress ng Trapo, atbpa! Halata Walang Alam!

      KILALANIM NINYO AT WAG PANSININ.. . !

    • 5.2
      bullseye_46 says:

      Count me in.

    • 5.3
      chit navarro says:

      What do you make of Chiz Escudero? He owned up to his sloppiness and is now doing something to rectify his error.
      And what about the son of the principal sponsor, Sen. Angara? Isa pa naman siya sa mga promising politicians ni Joe America.

      LET US MAKE SURE THAT TITO SOTTO WILL NO LONGER BE THE MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER NEXT YEAR!

      • 5.3.1
        Johnny Lin says:

        Escudero has seen and accepted his negligence. He admitted to it. He must be given credit for that.

        On the other, in my opinion Escudero, Poe Llamanzares and Legarda must declare publicly that they want their names to be listed only by one party, EITHER LP or UNA. They could not serve two masters at the same time. Undoubtledly there will be at east one minor different agenda in the campaign platform between the two parties, so these candidates have a duty to make one party choice.

        If these 3 adopted candidates would not decline inclusion from one party, I would not vote any of them because they lack the basic principles of loyalty and decency to be identified with one master. Poe and Escudero would be two of my preferred candidates while Legarda is in the bottom or outside of my top 14 candidates.

    • 5.4
      Cha says:

      DO NOT VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATES OF UNA !

      Last Saturday, the Sydney Morning Herald (one of Australia’s leading newspapers) featured a story on anomalous transactions related to the purchase of search and rescue sea vessels from an Australian contractor entered into by the Estrada administration. Negotiations apparently started while Estrada was still Vice-President and already starting his campaign to run for President. (To read the full article, just google “When things go wrong at sea. – Suspicion surrounds an Australa-Philippine deal”).

      Here is what Australian businessman, Cyril Peel, who initially brokered a deal with the Ramos government had to say about Estrada, one of the “three kings” of UNA:

      “Peel had recently warned Tenix management in Australia that dealing with Estrada and his cronies would be a different matter to the formal negotiations that had taken place with the administration of Fidel Ramos, who was nearing the end of his term.”

      “I had warned the Salteris and their senior executives on many occasions in person and in writing that with Estrada becoming President things would change, the old Marcos days of kickbacks would return.”

      ‘I knew Estrada well. I was close to the people at the forefront of his political campaign. I knew about the kickbacks they had received from other parties to push through contracts once Estrada took over from (former President) Ramos. ”

      Yan ang UNA, una sa pangungurakot!

    • 5.5
      Gene Simmowns says:

      …and benchwarmers like Panday and Leon Guerrero…:)

  35. 4
    tess says:

    since he already admiited the insertion of the online libel provision, sen. sotto can still redeem himself by personally working on repealing this law and correct it, he owes it to the people who voted for him. wake up mr. sotto! wake up!

  36. 3
    Girlie Destura says:

    Because of Tito Sotto’s insertion in the bill, I strong believe that this person should not be voted anymore. His insertion to the bill is deception to the Filipino people..

  37. 2
    Jrivera999 says:

    Waiting for your next article. Hoping that through your effort we can get rid of lying thiefs like sotto.

  38. 1
    jericjed says:

    can’t wait for the sotto article…

  39. tordj says:

    anti cybercrime law is also the top article in reddit.

  40. baycas says:

    Stop cyber martial law…

    http://pifa.ph/

  41. andrew lim says:

    THEY HAVE STARTED BLOCKING COMMENTS ONLINE

    I just want to report that they have started to block out comments deemed libelous in the Inquirer news online forums.

    It uses a horizontal black stripe on the banned comment, with the words “comment blocked” RA No. 10175.

    Can someone post a screen shot of it? I do not know how.

    Reminds you with what they do with books written by ex-CIA operatives.

    Is this Inquirer’s move or the Cybercrime authorities?

    • Vibora says:

      it goes like this: (shades of black) followed by
      “ᴄᴏᴍᴍᴇɴᴛ ʙʟᴏᴄᴋᴇᴅ.] (ʀᴀ ɴᴏ. 10175)”
      i saw this in one comment on Facebook.

      • Cha says:

        It’s a form of protest going around in facebook. People are deliberately blacking out their own comments to dramatise cybercrime law enactment scenario. Profile photos are also being blackened.

    • raissa says:

      Give me a link. I’ll do it.

  42. Charlie Root says:

    If you have < 20mins, you should see this, quite relevant at these times ;-)

    http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government.html

    • springwoodman says:

      Thank you. Much food for thought there. Empowers CPMer’s and all bloggers.

    • pelang says:

      maiba ako. Please read the PDI articles: Enrile Jr. Chance to Clear up bad image by Gil Cabacungan and read comments by Juan, and Rock 7222. Also Alfie Anido Mystery death according to Enrile by Cathy Yamsuam and comments by Rock 7222, Manong Osang, Wishful thinking, and R. also published by PDI.
      intersting to read.

  43. Clementine says:

    Napansin ko lang, wala ng narco-comment sa mga news item like in Phil inquirer, abs-cbn news, etc…. Hindi lang nag copy paste si plagiarist,; pinatay pa ang acting freedom of speech/ expression. Hanep talaga.

  44. Ancient Mariner says:

    SOTTOBOTOMY : The removal, by surgery, of all the healthy and sound parts of the brain.

  45. Rene-Ipil says:

    Fellow CPMers, please forgive me for digressing from the day’s favorite topic.  But I am really disappointed on what is happening with the Supreme Court (SC) on, according to the most senior justice (Carpio), an insignificant event.  This is about the continued inability of senior justices to attend the flag raising ceremony in the SC without any valid explanation.  Justice Carpio merely explained that the attendance thereof depends on the predisposition of individual justice.  Shall we accept that explanation? I think we all know the real reason for such actuation of the senior justices.

    To me, the failure of the justices to attend the flag raising rites constitutes a bad example to all Filipinos, especially the youth. Not to mention that such failure is a gross violation of an SC circular of 2001 and the 1998 Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines.  In regard to this, the Inquirer cited Atty. Romulo Makalintal.

    “Lawyer Romulo Macalintal earlier called on the justices to attend the flag ceremony, whether they liked Sereno or not, to show respect for the law, the flag and the country.

    “He reminded the justices about a circular issued by the Court in 2001, which required executive judges to supervise the holding of the flag rites in their courthouses and “shall ensure the attendance of all judges and court personnel in the rites.”

    “Macalintal also pointed out that Section 18 of the Republic Act No. 8491 or the 1998 Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines provides that “all government offices and educational institutions shall observe the flag-raising ceremony every Monday morning.”

    I believe that such gross and unabashed “thrashing” of our flag constitutes at least a betrayal of public trust and a ground for impeachment.  May be we can start soonest with the Arroyo 8 whom we have lost our trust since the time they engineered the aborted escape of GMA through a TRO last year.  Of course we are facing an election year in 2013 but the impeachment proceedings should be started ASAP.   The Arroyo 8 justices are now  forewarned.

    • joseph says:

      Not only a bad example (!) but a blatant display of disrespect to the nation they sworn to protect.

      Who are they to violate the simple law of the land and expect to escape accountability by merely citing their personal preferences over their duty to uphold the constitutionality of our laws?

      Their egos do not matter in our right to become a respectable nation.

      Let’s challenge them!

      • joseph says:

        err _ Their egos do not matter . . . to HAVE a respectable nation

      • jorge bernas says:

        @ joseph,

        Tama ka pare, Hindi dapat baliwalain ang kabobohang pinaggagawa nang mga TUTANG justices na ito. Kong hindi nila nagustuhan si chief justice sereno eh dapat magresign nalang sila diyan. Sila na dapat magpakita nang magandang halimbawa pero ano itong ginagawa nila. if l were Pnoy patatalsikin ko mga BOBONG justices na yan kong noon iniimpeach si convicted thief justice nato corona ay wala silang kibo dahil takot na takot dahil baka mawala ang sariling pakinabang ngayon ay nagpapakita nang nabobohan…Kilala na namin kayo mga TUTAng justices, Mahiya naman sana kayo sa pinaggagawa ninyo.

    • springwoodman says:

      Justice Carpio said we should watch his judicial decisions.

      Conchita Carpio-Morales said, “Institutional integrity starts with personal integrity”.

      Personal integrity relates to all decisions, whether large or small, judicial or not.

      So in the small matter of flag-raising ceremonies, Justice Carpio at al must observe personal integrity. It is a matter of law and, therefore, a matter of judicial institutional integrity.

    • leona says:

      Attending flag ceremony (every Monday?). Is there a law on that? Or it is a mere “regulation” by someone or group in the SC? Then “pledge of allegiance” too? If a justice or et al., does not attend, keeps on not attending that, what happens? Disloyalty? Not true Pilipino? Etc.? During the time of ex-CJ Corona, there is that ceremony? Di ba? But, what was the low poll survey of the SC as re to some of its decisions, flip-flopping, TROs, “letters” from lawyers re: PALEA Case, atbpa? In short, despite attending that ceremony, it couldn’t raise the people’s trust on the Court. Is that it? I do not see waking up so early a.m. just to attend that and again sing and give the pledge. They have done that so many thousands of times already! Wa-Ay epekto yan!’

      Dapat, laging ng X-Ray machine doon, so it can be seen who are really not true Pilipino. Let us not waste too much show such as that ceremony every Monday.

      What counts and should be watched is the quality of the performance of the work in that department of government. Never mind attending that “EVERY MONDAY MORNING!” One is still a true Pilipino without that.

      • leona says:

        What is the penalty under the law R.A. 8941 for not attending? Has anyone been punished? Has anyone been stripped of what? None? Justices of the Court not attending? VIP violators yan! If the law cannot be enforced even on justices, why the law in the first place? Right infront of everybody’s noses and nothing is done for non-attendees!

        • springwoodman says:

          @leona

          Let us not talk about the fact that the flag is the symbol of the country. Let us not talk about disrespect for the flag is equivalent to disrespect for the country. Let us not talk about the law. Let us not talk about betrayal of trust. Let us not talk about impeachments.

          Rather let us talk about little things. Let us talk about how little things mean a lot.

          You know how touching it is, as the song goes, when a loved one says how nice you look even when you feel you’re not, or when a loved one sends the “warmth of a secret smile”? Whew, that sends shivers down my spine. And you know how, as a Mom or Dad or even as a grandparent, how the spontaneous hug of child gives whole meanings to the word “love”?

          Surely you have been the recipient of such little things. Surely you have been the giver.

          Now I know it is a long stretch to compare such acts with attending a flag ceremony so early on Monday mornings when you would rather have another minute in the warmth of the bed or another cup of that magnificent coffee. And, no, you don’t have to do this every Monday morning.

          But that is how certain moments in life is and should be: a small symbolic act confirms our intentions. It reveals the bigger truth of where our passions lie.

          Smile. :-)

          • filipino_mom says:

            But that is how certain moments in life is and should be: a small symbolic act confirms our intentions. It reveals the bigger truth of where our passions lie.

            very nicely put @springwoodman. thumbs up.

          • leona says:

            Thanks for your smile…the problem is, since I am the ponente justice to kill that Cybercrime law and its libel provisions, and I am still lying on my bed finishing my thoughts on the rationale or reasons to kill that law, making me get up so early just to attend that flag ceremony and forget my almost finished rationale to be put into writing upon arrival at 9 a.m. at the SC bldg, I FORGOT my rationale thoughts then! I sang Bayan Magiliw and took my Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag & Country. Now, all my Bretheren in Court will have to wait for some another weeks to bring my “decision” to finish to kill that law! While CPMers continues to bully-HO the inserter at Raissa’s BLOG!

      • gil G says:

        @Leona

        Do we need to be rewarded to do a little bit of patriotism? It’s the Philippines flag we are respecting here, not the justices or the supreme court. Do you advise the younger generations to ignore this “tradition” because when they get older it doesn’t matter anyway? Because they won’t get popular by reciting the “pledge of allegians” every Monday morning? It’s a shame. We all grew up respecting the Flag and now when we are facing our oblivion in life we suddenly don’t give importance to what we believed in.

    • Mel says:

      Chief Justice ML Sereno’s warning to Monday Flag Ceremony Truants?

      Chief Justice now requires SC employees to attend flag-raising ceremony

      MANILA, Philippines — Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno issued last Friday a memorandum reminding all employees at the Supreme Court to attend the flag-raising ceremony every Monday morning.

      Court employees, who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to mediamen, revealed this to reporters.

      The memo was not intended for release to the media because it was an internal memo, according to the sources.

      Source: By Jerome Aning Philippine Daily Inquirer. 9:42 pm | Sunday, September 30th, 2012

      READ the whole story at newsinfo inquirer net/280268/chief-justice-now-requires-sc-employees-to-attend-flag-raising-ceremony

    • Johnny Lin says:

      Agree with Sereno putting out this flag ceremony reminder because it is part of the official obligation of a government employee? As CJ it is her duty to remind everyone of their patriotic duty under the law. Sereno inherited the rule. All SC employees, not only the justices, are put on notice. If one is non compliant, admonishment accordingly with internal memo would ensue. That is fairness as it could be. The memo was not given only to justices. Give credit to Sereno for instituting discipline to spoiled SC employees and their complaint is basically to fodder intrigue among justices and to protect their own selfish interest not to go to work early every Monday.

      Also agree with Justice Carpio that “do not look on the flag ceremony attendance but at their decisions”.
      Attending a flag ceremony will not enhance their knowledge but open defiance to a government office rule under the law is a test of their intelligence and simple obedience to the law. If the justices could not follow reasonably their own law, then, they don’t have the moral ascendancy dispensing justice.

      We do not expect every employee or justices to be present every Monday in the flag raising. Yet their absence must not be habitual!

    • Rallie Florencio Cruz says:

      I am one hundred percent agreeing with you in your opinion Mr. Rene-Ipil.
      With what this members of Supreme Court have been doing lately, it clearly state that they need a total revamp on its membership.

    • inagi says:

      Mr. Singit…. strikes back!

  46. Trigz says:

    Thanks for this, Raissa. I think a more in-your-face definition of Sottomy would be “sneakily inserting something into the wrong hole.” :>

  47. baycas says:

    Off-topic:

    No to UNA…

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/279790/2013-elections-battle-lines-drawn

    And the “Three Shades of Grey”…

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2012/09/liberal-party-una-party-thumbnails.jpg

    No to Escudero, Legarda, and Llamanzares.

    • Johnny Lin says:

      Agree to dump Escudero, Legarda and Poe if they dont insist to drop their names from inclusion in one party.

      Choose either LP or UNA!

      Binay already said that if they don’t join their rallies or srties, they will be dropped.

      The three shades of grey must accept the challenge of Binay!

      • Mel says:

        Hey Johnny, I refer you to comment #63.1of ‘Was Senator Sotto lying?’

        That is if it (#63.1 – ) is not yet under moderation or select filtered.

        • Johnny Lin says:

          @Mel

          I still remember your suggestion to us and @baycas to spearhead a senatorial candidates evaluation. Is that what you are pointing at #63?
          In @joe america, preliminary assessment was commented whom to vote and dump with reasonings.

          After Oct 5, the deadline for filing COC, will post my individual evaluation and personal opinionons of each candidate and the reason for preferentially selecting each one. Sen Drilon, LP campaign manager, already expressed in interview, Inquirer, that he will utilize extensively the social media in their campaigning. That means (US) the Netizens.

          De Venecia quits senate race, the question is will Nancy Binay replace him?

          Here is a scoop from my spy in UNA!
          A month ago, Nancy was being touted to be included in UNA roster. The first group to oppose her candidacy are Binay advisers from Balay and self interest government contractors group sidelined financially and momentarily by PNoy ” daan matuwid”, they do not want to stir the hornet’s nest unnecessarily, a logical tactic. We will hear from Binay himself that UNA election agenda is pro PNoy, the same strategy employed when they dumped Mar Roxas. Underground silence but vocal non attack on Aquino.

          Their reason: they did not want to pre-empt the exposure of Binay name prematurely prior to 2016.

          Her candidacy could open up topics of unexplained wealth, the COA Heidi Mendoza testimony on Elema Binay graft case and the political careers of Binay children, Nancy is representative and the son is mayor. Both children are wealthy on their own without known sources of income except political office.

          • Mel says:

            Johnny, I wrote this last night, “… comment #63.1of ‘Was Senator Sotto lying?'”

            Just visited RR’s blogsite this Am, now it is Comment #64.1‘Was Senator Sotto lying?’

            I have my hunches…

            I’m not really sure if you guys can see my comments (even this one), but definitely it is not under moderation since I posted it last night. But my referral to you has something to do with this news article –

            – Why Sotto must read Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law
            by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 10/01/2012 7:59 PM | Updated as of 10/01/2012 8:11 PM
            – www abs-cbnnews com/-depth/10/01/12/why-sotto-must-read-jan-24-2012-senate-journal

            And my follow up comments;

            BEGIN

            Mel says:
            October 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm
            Dissecting the paragraph of inferences. fill in the gaps, if you wish.

            On page 6, line 37, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph, to wit:

            4. LIBEL – THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS OF LIBEL …

            – What Bill or reference material does this point to “On page 6, line 37″? from what document is the source? (Bill ???)

            – the ‘Sponsor’, it is Senator Angara. Right? that Bill stated on the Jan. 24 Senate journal?

            – “the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph”. Who is this ‘Body’? Who composes this Body? Is Senator T Sotto part of this ‘Body’?

            – By semantics and literal interpretation, Sen T Sotto may be right.
            He didn’t physically or literally insert the Libel Clause or Section 4 to the Cybercrime Prevention BILL.

            That Bill version they refer to. Which one? They have several versions, which Bill version. Double check your Bill docu references…

            Reply

            Mel says:
            October 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm
            BTW, read err re-read (decipher) the phrase used in that journal “as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor”.

            ‘… as proposed’, ‘… and accepted’

            just at the nick of time before some publication?

            Reply

            Mel says:
            October 1, 2012 at 9:05 pm
            Addendum

            Dissecting the paragraph of or for inferences.

            Save, just at the nick of time before a sequel publication?

            I have follow up questions if there are any takers.

            Until then, good pm.

            END

          • Mel says:

            Johnny you wrote, “I still remember your suggestion to us and @baycas to spearhead a senatorial candidates evaluation. Is that what you are pointing at #63?” as above.

            NO

            Though your query is good. I thought my initial suggestion was incomplete due to space limitations.

            Not really sure now if it is plausible.

            However, it is for the CPM online community to participate in a series of online surveys, exchange of party or candidate choice (s), support or dissent from national (senate) to local by district, province, city.

        • Johnny Lin says:

          Mel, wrote a reply to tou, was lost in transition.

          • Johnny Lin says:

            @Mel
            Posted different reply.

            Just read the comment #63.1 about Noynoy attending Enrile book launching.

            Pres Aquino signed cybercrime law
            Aquino attended Enrile book launching.
            Lately Aquino, in my opinion is getting poor advice from his people.
            1. Was it intentional or inadvertent from his advisers is the question?
            2. Was it political in PNoy’s mind? Signing of bill was payback to Angara and attendance was payback to Enrile on their Corona impeachment votes.

            My opinion:
            1. Aquino was misled by his advisers on the bill. He was told on the crucial benefits of the bill on crime prevention of cybersex and identity theft but was not explained the detailed intricacies of lockdown and libel. Besides, in his mind he was supporting Angara. They do not have a choice now except to defend the bill because it was signed already, which is face saving maneuver. Who is saving PNoy? They enlisted Escudero who is credible with the youth and Guingona who was primary opponent of the bill. De Lima pre-empted the verdict with her DOJ input
            Verdict: my SC spy says a TRO will be issued by next Tuesday.

            2. Aquino appearance on Enrile book launching was wrong all the way! He should have asked Enrile to give him advance copy of the book to read before agreeing to attend. His presence was taken advantage by Enrile to promote sale of his book by presenting Aquino the first copy.
            Enrile lied in his book. Here is the proof:
            1. Marcos in his diary recovered un Malacanang when he fled stated that Martial law was declared with the connivance of Enrile by faking an ambush
            2. When EDSA I was at its height, Enrile together with Ramos declared this statement, “my ambush was fake in order for Marcos to have additional legitimate reason to declare martial law”
            3. In his book, he claimed he thought the ambush was for real because if he did not ride in his security aide car, he would have been kiled by the real bullets that riddled his personal car. His car was mangled in the rear by the impact of ammos. This is the first time he revealed he was riding in the security car. Enrile thinks we readers are stupid. That is why it was a fake ambush because he was riding in another car so he escaped injury. Real bullets would be used on his personal car for authenticity to show serious damage to the car.

            This book is about Enrile. His son Jackie’s past is irrelevant to his political travails. Here is the epitome of sinister ambition to keep the family name in political atena.
            Johnny Enrile also used his book to enhance the current senatorial candidacy of his son by making an alibi on the death of actor Alfie Anido which is the guillotine hanging over his son’s head in the coming election. Enrile employed Rico Puno’ s tactic. Give the name of a dead person as the primary alibi. Enrile named Fabian Ver who implicated his son on the death of Anido while Puno pointed to Jesse Robredo that he knew before he died he was resigning from DILG instead of being pressured to resign.

            Both Enrile and Puno belong to Binay’s camp. Is it a coincidence, they employed similar tactic to blame dead people?
            He he he!

            • Cha says:

              Below is a link to a copy of Sunday Times issue Feb 26, 1986, reporting Enrile’s confession of the “staged” assassination attempt:

              https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151242077192755&set=p.10151242077192755&type=1&ref=nf

              • Mel says:

                thanks @Cha.

                i recall during and after the Edsa People Power Revolution.

                PTV, ABS-CBN, 7 had several interview stints, no holds barred – up close revelations with the mutiny leaders, civic leaders, pro marcos admin with the different program hosts then. Post Edsa PPR, interviews went on for several days, weeks…

                These stations should dig their archives for interviews. The public and private libraries should have copies too of news papers during the post Edsa PP revolution.

                During the live events, JPE did confess on air by radio and tv the real score of the staged ambush and the truth behind the martial law proclamation. It became apparent when they were appealing for people help (human barricades) to rally in front of the main gates for opposite camps along edsa.

              • Mel says:

                JPE and cyber libel

                Written by RENE SAGUISAG
                Published on 05 October 2012

                THe Inquirer asked: “But didn’t he [JPE] himself tell the public on Feb. 22, 1986, as he and . . . Ramos barricaded themselves at Camp Aguinaldo after the discovery of their coup plot. . . , that the ambush was fake? Together with Ramos and [soldiers] that formed the Reform the AFP Movement (RAM), Enrile, speaking on radio, confessed, among other things, that Marcos ordered the staging of the ambush to contrive a final act by his [foes] that forced him to place the country under martial law.

                The Filipinos forgave him, and trooped to Edsa by the millions to shield him and Ramos and their troops against an assault by Marcos’ military.” PDI, September 30, 2012, A8, col. 1.

                If JPE lies, will son Jackie with his Alfie Anido problem? Fruit does not fall far from the tree? The version in the auto-bio that there was no fake ambush seems to be revisionism by one who has done good, validating that all autobiography is vanity (Durants). Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?

                I borrowed a copy of JPE’s auto-bio last Tuesday, but had time only to skim it, with all else I have to do. Kindly repeatedly invited to the book launch by JPE’s staff and the sponsoring Lopezes, I could not go. I was curious on JPE’s takes on certain items. Like 1) JPE’s supposed 1986 shouting match with PCGG’s Ramon Diaz, presumably over ill-gotten wealth. Gutsy of RD as the rest of us had been tsunamied by the JPE-FVR getaway. No mention. 2) How JPE got word on the need to meet Prez Cory who fired him on Nov. 23, 1986, a Sunday, and whether what happened was what he had expected. Page 665. Cryptic. Elliptical 3) Our early post-Edsa meets on freeing all political detainees, etc. In Club Filipino and Camp Crame meets were difficult and emotional. Uncle Jovy Salonga and I were committed to release all such detainees, a battle cry of years, which unimplemented, would put our credibility on the line right off. FVR was taciturn. JPE was against, as to the extreme left. Page 660. JPE wrote about the Ver-Edna romantic rumors. Page 482. What about his own love life? Page 37. GFs, he said in one memorable interview.

                JPE wrote that on the night of Feb. 25, 1986: “I met President Aquino in an open area behind the house of Mrs. Josephine Reyes. With her were Jimmy Ongpin, Nene Pimentel, and [ex-]Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Joker Arroyo, Ramon Mitra, Jojo Binay, Ernie Maceda, Rene Saguisag, and others. . . . President Aquino asked someone to call Ambassador Bosworth and she talked to him. All of a sudden, I heard her exclaim, “No! I do not want him here. I want him out of the country!” I was certain her remarks meant President Marcos.” Page 635. “. [S]hortly after her oath-taking, Cory held court at the head of the huge rectangular table in the cabinet room where Marcos had presided. Doy Laurel as Vice President sat normally to her right and I sat next to Doy as the Defense Secretary. To her left was Joker, her first Executive Secretary, who was pretty much the one steering the meeting. The rest of the cabinet members like Nene P, Neptali G, Rene Saguisag, Bobbit Sanchez, Ernie M, and the others occupied the other seats.” Page 656. To those still doubting I was Present at the Creation, belat kayo lahat. But, As Cory, Jr. I could not move freely as I wished. JPE, I was told, would not touch our food in our Cabinet meets. Poison concern?

                READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AT: manilatimes net/index php/opinion/columnist1/32522-jpe-and-cyber-libel

              • Johnny Lin says:

                @cha
                Thanks for the link. I was quoting from memory read in 1986.

                Enrile creatively fudged the truth in his book. He already had 3 versions on his “staged ambush” everytime he opens his mouth on the subject.
                His particular memory revelation depends on what stage he wants to stand on

                During martial law he was with the dictator Marcos to wield power
                During EDSA I, he sided with the the Anti Marcos people power to foster his treachery
                This time, he is muddling the truth to fraudulently exaggerate his legacy.

                Columnist Doronila identified him accurately in his latest opinion,
                “Enrile is the Sorcerer’s apprentice”

              • raissa says:

                Thanks for this, Cha.

              • baycas says:

                @Cha,

                Thanks.

                In corroboration…

                http://junbriosolawandbehold.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-struggle-between-truth-and-falsehood.html

                Enrile’s 1986 revelation
                Was an act of contrition

                His 2012 obfuscation
                Was to escape condemnation

                Enrile mastered the art of saving his own skin…

              • leona says:

                @Cha, I read the highlighted link above. Now, I really cannot know which among the “three versions” of lies and truths are the lies or truths? Like the pea that is kept moving inside 3 cups or shells on a table, so fast are the hands, it’s eye-boggling the mind cannot follow!

                Do we need a glass or transparent table and look under what cap or shell is the pea?

                I guess so, to know the truth of the pea!

  48. rene says:

    Cant wait to read that Sotto article. I know i will be fired up reading the article.. Tnx mam Raissa

  49. David says:

    ‘Bloody Monday': Hackers strike gov’t websites anew….

    “I think the better venue for them is to really show their protests in a proper forum rather than hacking government websites,” reports quoted Palace Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda as saying.

    http://ph.news.yahoo.com/-bloody-monday—hackers-strike-gov-t-websites-anew.html

    And where and when will this forum occur? the stupid ass Sottobomination law was inserted at midnight, hurriedly signed into law, so forum, what forum? Who will listen? Who cares?

    You can thank your brain dead, egg shell ego, senator for this problem. I do not agree with hacking, absolutely hate it, cost tax payers billions in govt funds trying to outsmart the hackers puts govt security and business at high risk while hackers see it as a hobby, gaining a laugh or two. The money can be better spent building bridges to nowhere. How much do we also spend on antiviral software/malware which has financial ramifications on all computer users. Well done Senator. You really opened a can of worms. Hope you get the attention you so well deserve.

    Why not just abolish the senate, if they are not here to help Filipinos, at least that way, they can not hurt Filipinos.

  50. bernardino says:

    i don’t understand why so many are blaming Sotto ofr this law. the only person to blame is the president who signed it bill into law. ultimately he is responsible. Sotto or whoever else can insert anything they want so if the president signs the bill, then it is obvious he concurs, approves, and supports it.

    this is no different from buying a car, applying for a credit card, or home mortgage. read the fine print. the president should have read the fine print. no matter what the salesmen/lender tells you, always read the fine print.

    blame Aquino for not reading the fine print before signing the bill into law. you are letting him off the hook by focusing on Sotto.

    • David says:

      No more fine print in the states. I think the consumer protection agency acted on that issue. Still you are right, Pnoy does have a lot of answering to do for this botched law inserted by a pseudo senator. It is also the voters fault for putting the idiot in office, but voters were under the impression he was upfront and honest, no fine print there, what you see is what you get. A flower child, a blooming idiot.

    • Joe America says:

      Very likely, the President acted with the advice of his legal staff or whoever is assigned to vet bills. The President can read it but not fully grasp the ramifications. Many who read it did not grasp the significance. Maybe because they read it several times BEFORE Sotto inserted the libel language and were not anticipating such a material addition WITHOUT DEBATE.

      Or perhaps the President did not want to delay the other important provisions simply because he did not like the libel clause, or believed the problems could be handled through the detailed rule-making that goes along with implementation of the bill.

      Sotto is the person who first plagiarized, then blamed the whistle blowers, then threatened, and indeed acted on the threat by inserting language that he could use punitively. Based on these acts, many believe Sotto is a scoundrel of no ethical bearing or grasp of democratic freedoms, or if he grasps them, he is willing to curtail them. President Aquino is not a scoundrel.

      • Bernardino says:

        Aquino signed it into law. If he delegated authority to his staff to read and prepare a summary for him to read before signing anything, he is still responsible for anything he signs. I agree with you that Sotto pliagiarized multiple timies and have admitted inserting the section in the bill, it is still the president’s responsibility to make sure that he understands what he is signing.No one can argue with that!

    • Noel says:

      Ultimately it’s the President’s onus, but a bill gets debated first in both houses before being presented to the President for signature, if both houses okay it. If it is a last minute insertion after having been debated upon
      and passed by both houses, then presented to the President, then there really is something very wrong in
      the way we make our laws.

      • Bernardino says:

        don’t sign anything unles you know what is in it! I can only assume that Aquino “assumed” he knew what was in the bill. He was duped by Sotto or by his staff who may have prepared a summary for him. bottom line he signed it into law.

    • springwoodman says:

      One must differentiate between primary cause and secondary causes. Sotto is the primary cause. He is responsible for the insertion of the libel clause.

      • curveball says:

        kaya nga meron mga secretary o assistant para check at re-check ang bawat bill na ipapasa kay Pnoy para pimahan di ba? kung bawat isa ng mga bill ay babasahin pa nya, ano na gagawin ng mga staffs nya? napagusapan naman siguro nila ito bago pirmahan at sinabi ng mga staffs na ok kaya pirma na din si Pnoy.
        Ano kaya ngayon ang nasa kalooban ng mga senador na pumirma, mga president’s staffs na nagbasa (kung binasa nga ng husto) at ni Pnoy sa mga nangyayari?
        Lalo na at maraming ng hackings sa goverment website na dahil sa bill na ito?

        • vander anievas says:

          sa ganang akin lang, maaaring may pagkukulang sa parte ng staff o secretariat ng malakanyang na siyang nagpaperma ng bill na ito sa pangulo. may posibilidad na ang insertion ay maaaring hindi napansin at inako na lang ng malakanyang na nalalaman nila upang sila ay hindi mapahiya. ito’y dapat na maituwid dahil marami na ang apektado. ang mga mamamayan ay naliligalig na sa bill na ito. hindi ito mabuti sa ating bansa. nagiging counter productive na ang pagtugon ng marami sa bill na ito.
          nananawagan ako sa mahal nating pangulo na huwag ipagwalambahala ang bagay na ito. dahil masasayang ang magaganda na nilang napasimulan kung mababatikan ng isang bagay na alam nating kagagawan lang ng iilan…

    • Johnny Lin says:

      @bernardino

      Please read comment #111 in the blog “who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute”

      • Bernardino says:

        It doesn’t make a difference. it was signed by Aquino after Sotto inserted it, not before. He signed it, he is responsible for it, plain and simple. I’m not protecting Sotto. He doesn’t belong in the senate or any elected office for that matter. but I won’t blame him for this.

        • Johnny Lin says:

          Gov Reyes of Palawan is accused of masterminding, financing, planning the murder of Dr. Ortega. The triggerman, that is who fired the deadly shot on Ortega was captured. Since the triggerman was the guilty person who fired the killing shot, then following your personal judgment Gov Reyes should not be equally blamed! Governor is on the run now.

          “It is not about protecting Sotto”. It is about rule of law, equality and justice. Sotto masterminded, inserted the libel clause. He does not deserve blame at all per your theory. You fully exonerated Sotto. According to your theory, Only Pres Aquino is guilty for signing the law. Just like the triggerman, eh?

          “It does not make a difference”, is that it?
          Really!

          He he he.

          • Bernardino says:

            apples and oranges. regardless of who inserted what in the bill, it is only a bill. as soon as the president signs it, it is now law. the president is responsible making what was inserted by who, law. i really don’t care if it was sotto or anyone else. the president, whoever he or she is must know what they are signing.

            • Johnny Lin says:

              The premise of comment #26 is to whom the blame should be directed.

              You wrote this, read again:
              “I don’t understand why so many are BLAMING Sotto for the law”.
              Naturally, without a bill, there is no law.

              Blame must be squarely placed on the architect and builder of the bill or structure. Legislation of bills usually progress into becoming laws based on consultations between the legislative bill proponents and executive signatory office. A bill does not have a chance to be approved by plenary and signed into law unless the author notified the office of the president beforehand. Sotto inserted the libel with explicit approval of the bill author, Sen Angara, and knowledge of the president’s men like the legislative liaison official. That is the nature of laws approved or vetoed by the president. So far Angara was defending wordings of the law, Sotto admitted responsibility on the libel clause and the executive office is defending the signing into law. This is absolute truth, so equally they are all to be blamed.

              • Mel says:

                If I may butt in, Johnny you wrote, “Sotto inserted the libel with explicit approval of the bill author, Sen Angara,… ”

                Please read my reply-comment to you at #29.1 with the date October 2, 2012 at 5:30 am.

                It would be best if Sotto’s chief of staff Villacorta be asked once again why his Senator still keeps protesting his innocence that he didn’t insert it.

                Once again, I quote that part in the Jan. 24 Senate journal for cybercrime law;

                On page 6, line 37, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph, to wit:

                4. LIBEL – THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS OF LIBEL …

                MY REPEAT COMMENTS for clarification.

                … as proposed’, ‘… and accepted’

                – What Bill or reference material does this point to “On page 6, line 37″? from what document is the source? (Bill ???)

                – the ‘Sponsor’, it is Senator Angara. Right? that Bill stated on the Jan. 24 Senate journal?

                – “the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph”. Who is this ‘Body’? Who composes this Body? Is Senator T Sotto part of this ‘Body’?

                By semantics and literal interpretation, Sen T Sotto may be right.

                He didn’t physically or literally insert the Libel Clause or Section 4 to the Cybercrime Prevention BILL.

                My Original comment entry was at #63.1, TODAY it is Comment #64.1‘Was Senator Sotto lying?’

                … my referral to you has something to do with this news article –

                – Why Sotto must read Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law
                by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 10/01/2012 7:59 PM | Updated as of 10/01/2012 8:11 PM

                – www abs-cbnnews com/-depth/10/01/12/why-sotto-must-read-jan-24-2012-senate-journal

              • Johnny Lin says:

                “Inserted” first used by Raissa in previous blog. Malig report used same word “inserted”

                Libel provision was “Proposed or suggested by Sotto.
                Accepted or approved by author, Angara while discussing in caucus or privately probably.

                Inserted probably referred to its addition later into the original bill prior to voting.. When exactly? I don’t know but definitely before signing into law by Aquino

                The body could be referring to committee or author/co-authors of bill.

                In my understanding from Raissa blog, “insertion” meant Sotto was prime proponent to include the libel provision, that is he was primary responsible to suggest, propose, recommend or insert or add the provision into the original bill which was approved or accepted by author, Angara.

                Not literally sneaking the libel provision into the bill after voting of the bill in the senate floor.

              • raissa says:

                If Sen. Sotto had not raised the inclusion of online libel into the bill during the January 24 period of amendments, then it would not be in the Senate bill. So Sotto is the author. Senator Angara, who acceded to Sotto’s insertion, is the Senate bill’s main author.

              • Mel says:

                I just read the replies now.

                Thanks Johnny, springwoodman and Raïssa.

                Are there any more takers from the CPMers?

                I reserve my reply later.

                But if I may suggest Raïssa, ‘It would be best if Sotto’s chief of staff Villacorta be asked once again why his Senator still keeps protesting his innocence that he didn’t insert it.’


                One unsolicited tidbit.
                In round table discussions, a proposal is one of many, acceptance of one from many is better, for approval by a majority of a caucus (body) for acceptance to incorporate (or insertion) without dissention is collegial (popular).

                The above quotation (“On page 6, line 37, …”) from the Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law is irrefutable. That balance of truth weighs on the side of the embattled Senator.

              • Mel says:

                THIS IS MY SECOND TRY TO SUBMIT.
                ———–

                I just read the replies now.

                Thanks Johnny, springwoodman and Raïssa.

                Are there any more takers from the CPMers?

                I reserve my reply later.

                But if I may suggest Raïssa, ‘It would be best if Sotto’s chief of staff Villacorta be asked once again why his Senator still keeps protesting his innocence that he didn’t insert it.’


                One unsolicited tidbit.
                In round table discussions, a proposal is one of many, acceptance of one from many is better, for approval by a majority of a caucus (body) for acceptance to incorporate (or insertion) without dissention is collegial (popular).

                The above quotation (“On page 6, line 37, …”) from the Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law is irrefutable. That balance of truth tilts on the side of the embattled Senator.

              • Mel says:

                “Ang proposal ko, hindi insertion, because I proposed it on the Senate floor, open plenary. Ano bang pinagsasabi nilang insertion? Para bang sinasabi nilang merong sinister? Ang mahirap sa kanila bintang sila nang bintang [My proposal to include libel in the cybercrime law was not an insertion, it was proposed in open plenary, so why do they keep using the word ‘insertion’ and implying there’s something sinister?. The problem with them is they just blindly keep accusing people],” – Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III.

                Source: www interaksyon com/article/44595/sotto-to-chiz-rush-pending-bill-decriminalizing-libel-instead-of-repealing-sec–4

                BTW, the interaksyon news web link quoted in the CBS web link associated or embedded in Raïssa’s paragraph – “By the way, I’m glad Senator Vicente Sotto has finally admitted it was he who had inserted the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Act.”.

                Which was the source link of BARNABY LO of CBS NEWS on September 28, 2012, 3:08 PM, the source Interaksyon news weblink can not be found. I tried looking for that source link in the Interaksyon com site but can not find it. That CBS news ‘written by Barnaby Lo is now quoted also in The Manila Standard and Forbes.

                Meanwhile, Sen. Vicente Sotto III makes no apology for being one of two senators to insert the provision for libel at the very last minute.

                “Yes, I did it. I inserted the provision on libel. Because I believe in it and I don’t think there’s any additional harm,” Sotto was quoted as saying in the local news website Interaksyon com.

              • Mel says:

                As a CPMer and in the spirit of Fair play, the critical written document here is the Jan. 24 Senate Journal for Cybercrime Law.

                As for Sen Sotto’s Chief-of-Staff Hector Villacorta in reference to the following piece;

                It was Senator Sotto who inserted libel as a “content-related offense” in Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Law), his Chief-of-Staff Hector Villacorta confirmed to me today in an interview.

                “I can verify that,” Villacorta told me.

                Source: Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute? – RR

                “I can verify that,” is neither a clear nor solid confirmation.

                Read comment #64.1 of “Was Senator Sotto lying?”

                Good or bad publicity, it is good PR campaign for a Senator Politician. Tito Sotto may be unwittingly benefitting from this raucous. The Jan. 24 2012 Senate Journal absolves him.

                To equate a proposal with Cut err Copy en’ Paste, Insert, or penetrate with a section 4. He has the last laugh.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                LOL! Sotto was complaining, then contradicted his own complaint.

                There was an original bill.

                Sotto proposed, suggested or recommended in plenary to “Add” another provision on the bill. Others used the word “Insertion” because technically he added something into the original bill.

                What is the difference? What is the issue?

                There is, if Bill Clinton is the idol on semantics.
                “it depends what “is” means”
                “Oral sex is not sex per se”

                He he he

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Posted reply, lost in transition again

                Sign of progress, too much traffic
                More the merrier, hurrah!

                He he he.

              • Mel says:

                sa dami ng pills, i mean bills. hindi nila alam kung anu tuloy ang posisyon na gagawin nila at kung alin o sinu ang mau-una.

                ba’t hindi na lang nila pag abalahan ang RH Bill. nakalimutan na.
                tuloy – maraming na-aanakang wala sa plano.
                iba ang nabubuo.

              • springwoodman says:

                @mel,

                What is the issue here? Is it whether Sotto is responsible for the insertion of the libel clause? If it is, the body of Raissa’s blog above has this to say:

                “By the way, I’m glad Senator Vicente Sotto has finally admitted it was he who had inserted the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Act.”

                Literally speaking, you are right: Sotto may not have physically inserted the clause. More likely it was done by an aide of the Sponsor.

                Semantically speaking, Sotto was lying in his initial denial of responsibility.

            • springwoodman says:

              No one is protecting the President. True, he is ultimately responsible for turning the bill into law. No argument there. But is it the claim that Sotto is blameless if he inserted the libel clause?

              There is the act of signing, secondary cause. Before that there was the act of inserting, primary cause.

              If one refuses to differentiate between primary, secondary, tertiary, etc causes, then blame US – the Filipino voter – for electing PNoy into office. We put him there so we are responsible for all his actions.

              But the causal chain is endless, and can go all the way back to Adam and Eve. But wait… isn’t God responsible for all this?

              • jeff.justice-born-and-raised-in-cebu says:

                It is also possible the insertion was pre-meditated if only to test and even expose the vulnerabilities of this administration. Heck, I would even hazard a guess Pnoy’s ineptitude and incompetence may be well known among his former peers in the senate.

                It is not far-fetched the senate leadership is aware of this “singit” provision, a bait na-naka-lusot and swak na swak. Pnoy simply obliged and his work habits begin to stink.
                He signed without having a clear understanding… to the point of carelessness even reckless if I may add, especially after they attempted to defend it for damage control.

                After the Robredo & Puno “mini-series”, including the quirino grandstand debacle; sealed/stamped by the PNP firearm-google affair, I need not see anymore to convince myself it was all honest mistakes. He is simply incompetent and unfit for the presidency.

                Just wondering what other important documents he signed without looking.
                All in all, this could be a symptom of a deeper problem.

                There is a local term: “bara-bara”.

          • Rene-Ipil says:

            Bernardino, Johnny Lin@26.5

            Let us stick to the issue which is whom to blame for the enactment of the cybercrime law.  Sotto or Pnoy.  

            I think we have to blame them both.  But I believe that the participation of Sotto  was premeditated and deliberate while that of Pnoy was a mistake due to carelessness, complacency and misplaced trust. Sotto was the mastermind in conspiracy maybe with other senators and Pnoy’s staff, while Pnoy was used to deodorize or legitimize the plot to undermine netizens.

            Conspiracy is done even if the conspirators did not plan or agree together. It is enough that they have unity of purpose.

  51. baycas says:

    “Titosotto” already inserted in the Urban Dictionary…

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=titosotto

  52. jericjed says:

    guys, what’s your stand on chiz’s admission regarding his “oversight”, and that “he would file a bill seeking amendments to the law in the coming days…”?

    • duquemarino says:

      Haste makes waste!!

      Ang dali naging batas ng cypbercrime prevention, ang bilis din naman aminin na kelangan ang amendment. Laughing stock tuloy ang legislative body at nasabit pa si PNoy for signing it into law. Had it been reviewed by the Malacanang bright boys, he could have exercised his veto power.

      In crafting a law the use of conjunctions “or” and “and” makes a lot of difference, ano pa kaya ang insertion ng questionable provisions.

    • chit navarro says:

      it is an affiration of hi humility – that he can accept his oversight and will do something to rectify it. It means he is for the country and he wants to serve – he is human, there are mistakes but he can accept them and will go out of his way to fix it.

      unliek other seantors…

    • vander anievas says:

      i welcome such a manly gesture. we all know that a person full of wisdom is gentleman enough to immediately accept his mistake. no one is perfect. dull and dumb doesn’t.

  53. agot says:

    Section 19 of the Cyber Crime Law cited by Father Bernas reads:

    “SEC. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. – When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data”.

    It does not seem to authorize the DOJ to search and seize the computer data. The authority of the DOJ is only upon finding that the computer data volates the the Act. Earlier sections of the law suggest that the finding of violation must by the regular courts.

  54. springwoodman says:

    I keep wondering why, if Sotto has been shown to have lied on insertion of the libel clause, why the Senate Committee on Ethics does not discipline him.

    Alan Cayetano, the chair of the committee, is up for re-election – as are members Honasan and Legarda.

    These re-electionists do NOT deserve to be returned to the Senate.

    • chit navarro says:

      It seems that Sotto is also the Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, so he can not fiel a case against himself, right?

      • springwoodman says:

        Sotto is an ex-officio member of the committee. Most probably because he is Majority Floor Leader.

        Any senator should be able to file action against Sotto for the committee to consider. Santiago, a committee member, who is always vocal is strangely silent. Honasan, also a member, does not seem to have the soldierly balls to attack. I do not expect much of the other members – Arroyo, Marcos, Lapid and Estrada (ex-officio). Sotto must have the goods on all these people.

        Cayetano, as chair, has primary responsibility to call a meeting. Sotto should recuse himself if he is the subject of discipline.

    • Joe America says:

      They are defining their values, aren’t they, through being complicit in the great silence? No for re-election. . A. Cayetano, Honasan, Legarda. Gross negligence at caretaking public interest.

      Thanks for naming the names. I’ll reinforce it on my site.

    • Bernardino says:

      the sad thing is that the alternative is to chose new candidates from the same political clan, enrile, estrada, aquino, etc. filipinos need beter choices to pick from. families also rule local elections. if the male family member becomes inelgible, the wife or son/daughter runs for the saem office held by the dad. sadly it is the nature of politics in the country. choise is slim to none.

  55. leona says:

    Reading Fr. Bernas’ “good and chilling” sides, the comment of the good Father is now pointed directly to Sen. Angara. Sen. Sotto’s was on the rider on libel provisions. The former (Sen. Angara) has to answer or explain the parts that Fr. Bernas’ pointed out like no warrant issued by a judge but only the DOJ, no probable cause but only prima facie evidence, etc. The points stated by Fr. Bernas are chilling and will touch to violate constitutional provisions specially on the Bill of Rights. Thank you Fr. Bernas, and Raissa for putting this out here.

    • leona says:

      add lang…That highlighted PhilStar news dated Aug. 31/2012 @12 a.m. by Raissa re Sen. Sotto’s “warning” …he says “many DIG for faults” and “answerable to God for their criticism.” Diggers for faults…” isn’t this good enough?

      Had the senator said “dig for false faults” iba yun and he’ll be right. If one dig for faults, will God punish the digger if the fault is correct? Yes, when false faults are dug up!

  56. Art Montesa says:

    Congratulations, Raissa and Alan – More Power to You!! I’m just wondering if the SC might not find this cybercime law unconstitutional.

  57. Art Montesa says:

    Congratulations, Raissa and Alan – More Power to You. Thank you for always taking up the cudgels for all of us. I’m just wondering if the SC is able to declare this law as unconstitutional.

  58. anton says:

    The New York-based Human Rights Watch said today: “A new Philippine “cybercrime” law drastically increases punishments for criminal libel and gives authorities excessive and unchecked powers to shut down websites and monitor online information,”

    http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/28/philippines-new-cybercrime-law-will-harm-free-speech

  59. kontrapilo says:

    There are times that I feel not writing any comments at all to any internet blog. I may not know I can be accused of what they call now as CYBER CRIME LAW. Ms. Raissa can you please extend some intelligent information on how to commit a cyber crime ? What are the ingredients to be a cyber criminal. I wish to know it so I will be the first earthling to be tried and maybe to be landed in jail. Is it not interesting, and honor to be the ONE.? SOTTOHELL ???

  60. vander anievas says:

    did sotto exposed all his sides so pinoys will appreciate his worth as a senator?

  61. Mel says:

    “Oh, by the way – NO, this is not the interesting topic I promised to write about Sotto. That’s coming next. You’d be surprised. I guess he will, too.” – RR

    It’s 8.25 am Monday, 01 Oct 2012 (AEST), how long will we wait?

    Wouldn’t like to miss or finish my meal with out the main course or dessert.
    How long should you stir and fry the dish of the week?

    I hope the Exposé could bring the House down. :smile:

  62. baycas says:

    All sides are important in order to shape a law. Sneaky individuals have no room in legislation.

  63. baycas says:

    They strike again…

    The hacktivists said: “We express our highest condemnation to the Bicameral Conference, especially to Sen. Vicente Sotto III, for inserting the online libel provisions, which are not present even in the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime penned by the Council of Europe, which was the basis for RA 10175.”

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/09/30/12/amid-appeals-palace-‘hacktivists’-strike-again

  64. yvonne says:

    And if I may add, the Asian Journal, published in California, also picked up on Raissa’s blog. Here is the link to Asian Journal editorial citing Raissa’s work:

    http://www.asianjournal.com/editorial/5-editorial/17333-freedom-of-cyber-expression.html

  65. Joe America says:

    Well, this article is plenty interesting enough, so the next one better be a humdinger.

    Libel is such a slippery slope, eh? Senator Sotto blames bloggers for harming him, totally denying the point that his plagiarism is the root cause. He finds words as a counter to the sharp language coming at him not good enough. He wants people in jail.

    You say this isn’t as serious as Marcos? This guy has a very dark mind, disjointed, split from any sense of personal responsibility for the criticism he receives. If he had guns, I sure wouldn’t trust him not to shoot.

    The cases you cite where you have been maliciously accused of things is also interesting. I think the standard for libel cannot be hurt feelings. Nor can it be that lots of people read the lie. Indeed, such negative publicity may be a part of the reason your readership is high. So perhaps you actually BENEFIT rather than suffer harm. And proving it one way or another is difficult and simply not worth the time.

    I think we – netizens and senators – have to readjust our sense of sensitivity in the internet age. Privacy is something to work at because it no longer occurs naturally. There are too many hunters out there, from google selling slippery ads and tracking your online clicks to friends tracking you down. Or enemies who pass along untrue stories to others because they are angry or small-minded.

    The cops and judges should be engaged only for cases where there is “material economic or physical harm”. Otherwise, words should be used to counter words. If I call Senator Sotto a small-minded jerk, I cause him no economic pain, and am actually trying to use those words constructively, to encourage him to think a little bigger and more respectfully of those with high values. You know, those who believe in intellectual property rights.

  66. yvonne says:

    To preserve our press freedom the new cyber libel law must be amended to be consistent with the principles of the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision, in Times vs. Sullivan, shielding the press from libel lawsuits by government officials unless they, the public officials, can prove actual malice on the part of the press.

    Likewise, the term “Press” must be clearly defined to include bloggers, columnist, and writers who use the internet as their means of communication and publishing, in addition to the traditional print media and radio/TV broadcast.

    • yvonne says:

      In Times vs. Sullivan, the court held that the burden of proof lies with the government officials to prove malice on the part of the Press, and not the other way around.

  67. pinay710 says:

    @raissa, excited ako at nate tense making my blood pressure boom rising sa paghihintay ng next article mo, marami na naman akong matututuhan. having lots of heartburn waiting for you.

  68. tagaDavao says:

    I am just an ordinary netizen, no political bone in my body, no journalistic hair in my head, just a plain and smple working, middle-class person who is an avid user of just one social network to connect with friends and families and i am a victim of cybercrime since november of last year. Posts against my person is still visible on FB upto now. I am very happy when the law against cybercrime was signed because i can now file charges against my aggresor and am certain that will be justly compensated for the sleepless nights, mental and emotional torture, anxiety, and other demons this has given me. I am sure this law was passed not because the authors want to suppress our freedom of speech but to protect those who were abused because of too much freedom of speech in the world wide web, a place where there is no boundary and security is almost non-existent. I admit that there are provisions in the law that need to be delicately defined, but i just hope that with the raucus that the bill has caused especiall to the media world, the ordinary netizens who are victims of defamatory statements like me, in the cyberworld will not be forgotten.

    • raissa says:

      Could you give us an idea what your case is about. Perhaps we could put our heads together on your case?

      • tagaDavao says:

        hi ms. raissa.. thank you very much for your reply.
        is it okay if i send u an email?

        • raissa says:

          Sure.

          • tagaDavao says:

            hi ms raissa, i sent u an email yesterday. i dont know if u have read it already or if u received it.

            but, i guess, it is now water under the bridge. Sen. Chiz Escudero has already filed a bill to repeal the online libel clause on the cybercrime law. and my tormentor will soon be rejoicing and more libelous statements coming my way…

  69. Rowena A. Burden, M.D. says:

    if he can lie to cebuano journalists during a Press Freedom Week forum about his sneaky insertion, make no mistake about it, he will exploit the libel clause of the cybercrime law to suppress our freedom… his grandfather must really be very dizzy from turning around in his grave tsk tsk tsk

    • Victin Luz says:

      Tito ” FINAGLER ” Sotto ……true @Rowena he will trick everybody about libel in the new law to suit his . unwarranted PROGRAMS as a senator.

  70. Johnny Lin says:

    Now that Raissa is read worldwide, CPMersand Filipino netizens must be in the forefront on 2013 election.
    Let us start the campaign NOT to elect those who Voted yes on Cybercrime bil.

    Unconstitutional laws could not be passed if we have honorable and intelligent lawmakers. We must make ourselves useful by active dissemination and participation in campaigning to elect new national leaders with highest regards to the welfare of the country and the people, not merely be contented with writing our sentiments on this blog.

    DO NOT VOTE FOR REELECTIONISTS SENATORS AND THEIR RELATIVES.

    DO NOT VOTE FOR SENATORS MEMBERS OF CORRUPT FAMILIES AND DYNASTIES LIKE BINAY, ENRILE, EJERCITO/ESTRADA, VILLAR, ANGARA.

    • leona says:

      From the newspapers many, men and women, all like Wanbol university grads are contemplating of running for public office, senator, congressman, governor, mayor, board member,atbpa! They many are publicly known to be nothing at all! SUS MA! It’s either notoriety, emptiness, shockingnesess, name it, many got it. The race in 2013 will be a gauge: ARE PILIPINO VOTERS MATURED, GETTING MATURED or GANON PA RIN?

      For the YOUTH …start learning now and up to 2013 and thereafter. Your are the future of this country. Pag umalis na kami, kayong naman ang mag hihirap.

      Dito sila makikilala: Guapo, Maganda, Sexy, Madaldal, Makulit, Maputi, Maitim, Mataa, Mababa, Payat, Mataba, Ambisyoso at Ambisyosa, Kapatid ng Trapo, Anak ng Trapo, Asawa ng Trapo, Pinsan ng Trapo, Apo ng Trapo, Mistress ng Trapo, atbpa! Halata Walang Alam!

      KILALANIM NINYO AT WAG PANSININ.. . !

    • bullseye_46 says:

      Count me in.

    • chit navarro says:

      What do you make of Chiz Escudero? He owned up to his sloppiness and is now doing something to rectify his error.
      And what about the son of the principal sponsor, Sen. Angara? Isa pa naman siya sa mga promising politicians ni Joe America.

      LET US MAKE SURE THAT TITO SOTTO WILL NO LONGER BE THE MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER NEXT YEAR!

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Escudero has seen and accepted his negligence. He admitted to it. He must be given credit for that.

        On the other, in my opinion Escudero, Poe Llamanzares and Legarda must declare publicly that they want their names to be listed only by one party, EITHER LP or UNA. They could not serve two masters at the same time. Undoubtledly there will be at east one minor different agenda in the campaign platform between the two parties, so these candidates have a duty to make one party choice.

        If these 3 adopted candidates would not decline inclusion from one party, I would not vote any of them because they lack the basic principles of loyalty and decency to be identified with one master. Poe and Escudero would be two of my preferred candidates while Legarda is in the bottom or outside of my top 14 candidates.

    • Cha says:

      DO NOT VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATES OF UNA !

      Last Saturday, the Sydney Morning Herald (one of Australia’s leading newspapers) featured a story on anomalous transactions related to the purchase of search and rescue sea vessels from an Australian contractor entered into by the Estrada administration. Negotiations apparently started while Estrada was still Vice-President and already starting his campaign to run for President. (To read the full article, just google “When things go wrong at sea. – Suspicion surrounds an Australa-Philippine deal”).

      Here is what Australian businessman, Cyril Peel, who initially brokered a deal with the Ramos government had to say about Estrada, one of the “three kings” of UNA:

      “Peel had recently warned Tenix management in Australia that dealing with Estrada and his cronies would be a different matter to the formal negotiations that had taken place with the administration of Fidel Ramos, who was nearing the end of his term.”

      “I had warned the Salteris and their senior executives on many occasions in person and in writing that with Estrada becoming President things would change, the old Marcos days of kickbacks would return.”

      ‘I knew Estrada well. I was close to the people at the forefront of his political campaign. I knew about the kickbacks they had received from other parties to push through contracts once Estrada took over from (former President) Ramos. ”

      Yan ang UNA, una sa pangungurakot!

    • Gene Simmowns says:

      …and benchwarmers like Panday and Leon Guerrero…:)

  71. tess says:

    since he already admiited the insertion of the online libel provision, sen. sotto can still redeem himself by personally working on repealing this law and correct it, he owes it to the people who voted for him. wake up mr. sotto! wake up!

  72. Girlie Destura says:

    Because of Tito Sotto’s insertion in the bill, I strong believe that this person should not be voted anymore. His insertion to the bill is deception to the Filipino people..

  73. Jrivera999 says:

    Waiting for your next article. Hoping that through your effort we can get rid of lying thiefs like sotto.

  74. jericjed says:

    can’t wait for the sotto article…

  75. -->

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Fr. Bernas calls Cybercrime Law “frightening” [...]

  2. [...] a quick guide to the best law ever enacted in the Philippines. Epic blogger Raissa Robles has a lot to say about it, so go over there and read her post. Also, this is my interpretation of [...]



Do share your thoughts:

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>